1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2:
3:
4: \journalinfo{To appear in The Astrophysical Journal 20 November 2007}
5: \submitted{Submitted: 22 June 2007; accepted: 5 August 2007}
6:
7: %\makeatletter
8: %\let\old@footnotetext=\@footnotetext
9: %\makeatother
10: %\documentclass{aastex}
11: %\makeatletter
12: %\let\@footnotetext=\old@footnotetext
13: %\makeatother
14: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
15: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
16: %
17: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
18: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
19:
20: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
21: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
22:
23: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\em{Chandra}}}
24: \newcommand{\rosat}{{\em{ROSAT}}}
25: \newcommand{\cxo}{{\it{Chandra X-ray Observatory}}}
26: \newcommand{\xmm}{{\it{XMM-Newton}}}
27:
28: \shorttitle{X-ray Flux Limits to Four Type Ia SNe}
29: \shortauthors{Hughes et al.}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \title{\chandra\ Observations of Type Ia Supernovae: Upper Limits to the
34: X-ray Flux of SN~2002bo, SN~2002ic, SN~2005gj, and SN~2005ke}
35:
36: \author{ John P. Hughes,\altaffilmark{1,2}
37: Nikolai Chugai,\altaffilmark{3}
38: Roger Chevalier,\altaffilmark{4}
39: Peter Lundqvist,\altaffilmark{5}
40: and
41: Eric Schlegel\altaffilmark{6}
42: }
43:
44: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Rutgers University,
45: 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019; jph@physics.rutgers.edu}
46: \altaffiltext{2}{Also Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton
47: University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544-1001}
48: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Astronomy, RAS, Pyatnitskaya 48, 109017
49: Moscow, Russia; nchugai@inasan.ru}
50: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia,
51: P.O.~Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA 22904; rac5x@astsun.astro.virginia.edu}
52: \altaffiltext{5}{Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova, Department of
53: Astronomy, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden; peter@astro.su.se}
54: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, The University of
55: Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, Texas 78249;
56: eric.schlegel@utsa.edu}
57:
58: \begin{abstract}
59:
60: We set sensitive upper limits to the X-ray emission of four Type Ia
61: supernovae (SNe~Ia) using the \cxo. SN~2002bo, a normal, although
62: reddened, nearby SN~Ia, was observed 9.3 days after explosion. For an
63: absorbed, high temperature bremsstrahlung model the flux limits are
64: $3.2\times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.5--2 keV band) and
65: $4.1\times 10^{-15}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (2--10 keV band). Using
66: conservative model assumptions and a 10 km s$^{-1}$ wind speed, we
67: derive a mass loss rate of $\dot{M} \sim 2\times 10^{-5}\, M_\odot$
68: yr$^{-1}$, which is comparable to limits set by the non-detection of
69: H$\alpha$ lines from other SNe~Ia. Two other objects, SN~2002ic and
70: SN~2005gj, observed 260 and 80 days after explosion, respectively, are
71: the only SNe~Ia showing evidence for circumstellar interaction. The
72: SN~2002ic X-ray flux upper limits are $\sim$4 times below predictions
73: of the interaction model currently favored to explain the bright
74: optical emission. To resolve this discrepancy we invoke the mixing of
75: cool dense ejecta fragments into the forward shock region, which
76: produces increased X-ray absorption. A modest amount of mixing allows
77: us to accommodate the \chandra\ upper limit.
78: SN~2005gj is less well studied at this time. Assuming the same
79: circumstellar environment as for SN~2002i, the X-ray flux upper limits
80: for SN~2005gj are $\sim$4 times below the predictions, suggesting
81: that mixing of cool ejecta into the forward shock has also occurred here.
82: Our reanalysis of Swift and \chandra\ data on SN~2005ke does not confirm
83: a previously reported X-ray detection. The host galaxies NGC~3190
84: (SN~2002bo) and NGC~1371 (SN~2005ke) each harbor a low luminosity
85: ($L_X \sim 3-4 \times 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$) active nucleus in
86: addition to wide-spread diffuse soft X-ray emission.
87:
88: %We observed four Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) with the \cxo\ and set
89: %sensitive upper limits to their X-ray emission. SN~2002bo is a normal,
90: %although reddened, nearby SN~Ia that we observed 9.3 days after
91: %explosion. Our flux upper limits depend strongly on the assumed
92: %spectral form of the putative X-ray emission. For an absorbed, high
93: %temperature bremsstrahlung model the limits are $3.2\times 10^{-16}$
94: %ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.5--2 keV band) and $4.1\times 10^{-15}$ ergs
95: %cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (2--10 keV band). Numerical models were used to
96: %convert flux limits to limits on the amount of circumstellar wind
97: %material in the system. The major uncertainty in this calculation
98: %comes from lack of knowledge about the state of electron-ion
99: %temperature equilibration in the shocked wind. Under the most
100: %conservative assumption, we derive a mass loss rate, assuming a 10 km
101: %s$^{-1}$ wind speed, of $\dot{M} \sim 2\times 10^{-5}\, M_\odot$
102: %yr$^{-1}$, which is comparable to limits set by the non-detection of
103: %H$\alpha$ lines from other SNe~Ia. Two other objects studied,
104: %SN~2002ic and SN~2005gj, are the only SNe~Ia showing evidence for
105: %circumstellar interaction. They were observed roughly 260 days and 80 days
106: %after explosion, respectively. The SN~2002ic X-ray flux upper limits,
107: %$1.1\times 10^{-15}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.5--2 keV band) and
108: %$1.7\times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (2--10 keV band), are
109: %about a factor of 4 below predictions of the interaction model
110: %currently favored to explain the bright optical emission. To resolve
111: %this discrepancy we invoke the mixing of cool dense ejecta fragments
112: %into the forward shock region, which produces increased X-ray
113: %absorption. Introducing a modest amount of mixing allows us to
114: %accommodate the \chandra\ upper limit. The more recent SN~2005gj is
115: %less well studied at this time. Assuming the same circumstellar
116: %environment as for SN~2002ic but updating the model to the earlier
117: %epoch, the flux upper limits, $2.7\times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$
118: %s$^{-1}$ (0.5--2 keV band) and $3.4\times 10^{-15}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$
119: %s$^{-1}$ (2--10 keV band), are about a factor of four below the
120: %predictions. Either the environment of SN~2005gj is less dense than
121: %that surrounding SN~2002ic or mixing of cool ejecta into the forward
122: %shock has occurred by this time in SN~2005gj. We also reanalyze Swift
123: %X-ray data on SN~2005ke for which a tentative detection has been reported. We
124: %do not confirm this earlier report and present X-ray flux upper limits
125: %during the mean epoch of the Swift observation, as well as some 70 days
126: %later using \chandra\ data. Finally we analyze the X-ray properties
127: %of the nearby host galaxies NGC~3190 (SN~2002bo) and NGC~1371
128: %(SN~2005ke). Each galaxy harbors a low luminosity ($L_X \sim 3-4
129: %\times 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$) active nucleus in addition to wide-spread
130: %diffuse soft X-ray emission.
131:
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134: \keywords{
135: galaxies: individual (NGC~3190, NGC~1371) ---
136: supernovae: general ---
137: supernovae: individual (SN~2002bo, SN~2002ic, SN~2005gj, SN~2005ke)
138: }
139:
140: \section{Introduction}
141:
142: Type Ia supernovae (SN~Ia) are an important subclass of supernova (SN)
143: that are thought to arise from explosions of white dwarfs in binary
144: systems, although the exact nature of their progenitor systems is
145: largely a mystery. This ignorance is not due to a lack of effort
146: since SN~Ia are the subject of intense scrutiny, not least of all
147: because of their importance as cosmological probes. SN~Ia have been
148: used to measure the Hubble constant \citep{ham95, riess96} and have
149: even given strong evidence for a non-zero cosmological constant
150: \citep{riess98, perl99}. Our failure to identify SN~Ia progenitors
151: highlights a major gap in our understanding of stellar evolution in
152: binary systems, and presents a stumbling-block to understanding the
153: chemical evolution of galaxies, since Ia's are known to be efficient
154: producers of iron. In addition, until SN~Ia progenitor systems are
155: clearly identified, it will remain difficult to convincingly eliminate
156: evolutionary sources of systematic error in the observed trend of SN brightness
157: with redshift.
158:
159: The current model framework for Type Ia SNe involves carbon
160: deflagration/detonation in a white dwarf driven close to the Chandrasekhar
161: limit by accretion. The most likely type of progenitor system
162: \citep{branch95} is a C-O white dwarf accreting H/He-rich gas from a
163: companion, either from its wind or through Roche lobe overflow.
164: Double degenerate scenarios with coalescing pairs of C-O white dwarfs
165: are also possible, while sub-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarfs are less
166: likely \citep{branch95}. In the non-coalescing scenarios, there will
167: be circumstellar gas whose composition and geometry depend on the
168: nature of the progenitor system. If the circumstellar medium (CSM)
169: emits radiation, or absorbs radiation from the SN, this can be used to
170: distinguish between types of progenitor systems.
171:
172: Thermal X-ray emission is expected to arise from the hot gas in the
173: interaction region between the rapidly moving supernova ejecta and the
174: wind from presupernova mass loss. Detecting this X-ray emission
175: offers a direct and potentially quite sensitive probe of the amount of
176: CSM. Because of its high sensitivity, broad bandwidth, unprecedented
177: imaging capability, and ability to respond rapidly to a target of
178: opportunity (ToO) request, the \cxo\ is the premier instrument to
179: search for faint X-ray emission from transient point sources.
180:
181: In the following we present the analysis and interpretation of
182: \chandra\ observations of four recent SNe~Ia. Two are fairly normal
183: SNe~Ia, while the others are peculiar cases showing strong H$\alpha$
184: emission from circumstellar interaction. The following section
185: describes the observed targets, \S3 presents the observations and
186: techniques, \S4 uses the upper limits on X-ray flux to constrain the
187: nature of the CSM, and the final section concludes. In an Appendix we
188: describe the X-ray properties of the host galaxies for the two nearby
189: systems, NGC~3190 and NGC~1371.
190:
191:
192: \section{Description of Targets}
193:
194: Our first targeted SN, SN~2002bo, was discovered on 2002 March 9
195: \citep{cace02} and was spectroscopically confirmed as a Type Ia SN
196: shortly thereafter \citep{kawa02,bene02,math02}. The SN appeared
197: approximately 18$^{\prime\prime}$ southeast of the nucleus of NGC~3190
198: in the middle of an apparent dust lane. Early optical spectra of the
199: SN indicated that it was quite young (10--14 days before maximum) and
200: possibly reddened. Based on the SN's proximity to Earth and very
201: early discovery, we triggered a pre-approved \chandra\ ToO observation
202: on March 12. The nominally 20 ks long observation was carried out two
203: days later (the midpoint of the observation was at JD 2452347.9). We
204: now know that the time of maximum light (in the B band) occurred on
205: 2002 March 23.0 UT or, equivalently JD 2452356.5, \citep{bene04,
206: kris04} and that the inferred explosion epoch was JD 2452338.6 $\pm$
207: 0.5. Our \chandra\ ToO observation was therefore made only 9.3 days
208: after explosion. We adopt a value of 22 Mpc for the distance to
209: NGC~3190 \citep[for more details, see][]{bene04, kris04}. SN~2002bo
210: showed significant reddening $E(B-V) = 0.43 \pm 0.10$ \citep{bene04},
211: most likely due to its host galaxy. We converted this to an
212: equivalent X-ray absorbing column value of $3 \times 10^{21}\, \rm
213: cm^{-2}$ using \citet[p.~527]{cox00} in order to model the SN's X-ray
214: flux.
215:
216: The second SN~Ia we observed with \chandra, SN~2002ic, is the first SN~Ia
217: in which a circumstellar interaction was detected \citep[however,
218: see][for an alternate view]{bene06}. Discovered on 2002
219: November 13 \citep{wood02}, it was spectroscopically identified on 2002
220: December 7 as a type Ia SN at a redshift of 0.0666 \citep{ham02}. In
221: 2003 June \citet{ham03a} reported the detection of broad (FWHM $\sim$
222: 1800 km s$^{-1}$) H$\alpha$ emission from the supernova, revealing a
223: SN/CSM interaction in SN~2002ic involving a dense CSM with as much as
224: several solar masses of material \citep{ham03b}. Evidence has been
225: presented for a clumpy, aspherical structure for the CSM
226: \citep{wang04,deng04,chuche07} as well as for gaps or troughs in the radial
227: profile \citep{wood04,chuyun04}. The unprecedented strength of the CSM
228: interaction in SN~2002ic combined with the persistence of the H$\alpha$
229: emission (which lasted for many months), led us to request a 20-ks
230: observation with \chandra\ under the Director's discretionary time
231: program. The request was approved and our observation was carried out
232: on JD 2452863.5 (the observation began on 2003 August 11).
233: \citet{wood04} estimate a date for maximum light in the B-band of JD
234: 2452606. Assuming a typical time between explosion and maximum light
235: of $\sim$18 days \citep{riess99} we estimate an explosion date of JD
236: 2452588. The \chandra\ observation was made 275 days after explosion
237: or approximately 260 days in the SN frame.
238:
239: Another peculiar SN~Ia (SN~2005gj), showing a circumstellar interaction,
240: was discovered on 2005 September 26 by the SDSS-II collaboration
241: \citep{barentine05,frieman05}. Originally classified as a probable
242: type-IIn supernova because of the presence of resolved Hydrogen line
243: emission, further spectroscopy demonstrated a remarkable similarity
244: with SN~2002ic, resulting in a reclassification of the event as a SN~Ia
245: but with clear signs of a circumstellar interaction \citep{prieto05}.
246: The SN lies in an anonymous galaxy at a redshift of 0.062
247: \citep{barentine05}. No X-ray emission was detected in a brief
248: observation on 2005 November 24 using the X-ray telescope onboard the
249: Swift satellite \citep{immler05}. A 50-ks long \chandra\ observation
250: was carried out under the Director's discretionary time (DDT) program
251: on JD 2453716.5 (the observation began on 2005 December 11).
252: \citet{aldetal06} recently presented an analysis of the optical light
253: curves and spectra in which they conservatively estimate that
254: SN~2005gj exploded sometime in the interval September 18.6--24.6.
255: More recently, \citet{prietoetal07} estimate the time of explosion to
256: be September $24.4\pm2.0$, based simply on whether or not they
257: detected the SN, which, conservatively, can only provide an upper
258: limit to the time of explosion. Since a difference of a few days is
259: not significant for our purposes, we take the midpoint value of the
260: \citet{aldetal06} study (JD 2453635.1) as our estimate for the
261: explosion date. This is some 77 days (in the SN frame) before the
262: \chandra\ observation.
263:
264: The final SN~Ia we report on here is SN~2005ke, which was discovered on
265: 2005 November 13 \citep{puckett05} and confirmed as a Type Ia SN a few
266: days later \citep{patat05}. These later authors estimated the
267: spectral age by comparison to SN~1999by to be a few days before
268: maximum light, which suggests an approximate explosion date of Nov 2
269: (JD 2453676.50). Although the host galaxy, NGC~1371, is relatively
270: nearby \citep[we use a distance of 17 Mpc;][]{tully88} the SN was
271: underluminous and not discovered particularly early so it was not
272: initially observed by \chandra. However, Swift devoted considerable
273: observing time to the SN ($\sim$250 ks) over the course of the
274: 2005/2006 winter and reported a tentative X-ray detection at about the 3
275: $\sigma$ significance level with a flux of $\sim$$4\times 10^{-15}$
276: ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-2}$ (0.3--2 keV band) \citep{immler06}. The
277: reported midpoint of the Swift observation is some 42 days after
278: explosion. Subsequently a \chandra\ DDT observation was approved and
279: carried out on JD 2453786.1 (beginning on 2006 February 19) about 110
280: days after explosion. No radio emission has been detected
281: \citep{soderberg06}.
282:
283: Table~\ref{tab_intro} summaries some key observational information
284: about the several SNe discussed in this paper.
285:
286: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
287: \tablewidth{0pt}
288: \tablecaption{Observed Supernovae}
289: \tablecolumns{5}
290: \tablehead{
291: \colhead{} &
292: \colhead{SN~2002bo} &
293: \colhead{SN~2002ic} &
294: \colhead{SN~2005gj} &
295: \colhead{SN~2005ke} }
296: \startdata
297: R.A.~(J2000) & 10:18:06.5 & 01:30:02.6 & 03:01:12.0 & 03:35:04.4 \\
298: Decl.~(J2000) & 21:49:41 & 21:53:07 & $-$00:33:13.9 & $-$24:56:38.8 \\
299: Explosion date (JD) & 2452338.6 & 2452588.0 & 2453635.1 & 2453676.5 \\
300: \chandra\ Obs. date (JD) & 2452347.9 & 2452863.5 & 2453716.5 & 2453786.1 \\
301: \chandra\ exposure (ks) & 19.6 & 17.3 & 49.4 & 14.8 \\
302: $N_{{\rm H I}}$ (atoms cm$^{-2}$)
303: & $2.1 \times 10^{20}$ & $6.2 \times 10^{20}$
304: & $7.1 \times 10^{20}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{20}$ \\
305: D (Mpc) / $z$ & 22 & 0.0666 & 0.062 & 17 \\
306: \enddata
307: \label{tab_intro}
308: \end{deluxetable*}
309:
310: \section{Observations and Techniques}\label{s-obs}
311:
312: Each target was observed near the nominal telescope aimpoint on the
313: back-side illuminated chip (S3) of the \chandra\ Advanced CCD Imaging
314: Spectrometer (hereafter ACIS-S). Although the background rate is
315: higher here than on the front-side illuminated chips of the imaging
316: array, the greatly enhanced low energy response of chip S3 was the
317: main deciding factor in favor of using it. Observations were carried
318: out in timed exposure mode with events recorded in FAINT (SN~2002bo:
319: Observation Identifier [ObsID] 2760; SN~2005ke: ObsID 7277) or VFAINT
320: (SN~2002ic: ObsID 4449; SN~2005gj: ObsID 7241) data mode. The same basic
321: data reduction processes were applied to each observation, using
322: standard \chandra\ software and calibration (CIAO version 3.2.2, CALDB
323: 3.1.0). This included applying the latest gain map, identifying and
324: removing hot pixel and afterglow events, using VFAINT mode information
325: (when available) to remove some non-X-ray (i.e., charged particle)
326: background events, and filtering on grade (retaining the usual values
327: 02346) and status. Light curves of the entire S3 chip were made to
328: identify times of high background. The SN~2002bo, SN~2005gj, and
329: SN~2005ke data were mostly free of flares, while the SN~2002ic data
330: showed a modest amount of background flaring. Excluding time
331: intervals more than 3 $\sigma$ from the mean resulted in final useful
332: exposure times of 19620 s (SN~2002bo), 17280 s (SN~2002ic), 49410 s
333: (SN~2005gj), and 14810 s (SN~2005ke). The astrometry of each pointing
334: was checked as well. We found no unambiguous matches between X-ray and
335: optical point sources in the field of SN~2002bo, so it was not possible
336: to obtain an independent check of the absolute astrometry of the X-ray
337: data. In lieu of this the on-line ``Aspect Calculator'' tool was run,
338: yielding an aspect offset of 0.5$^{\prime\prime}$ which was applied to
339: the data. For SN~2002ic, it was possible to match four X-ray sources
340: with optical counterparts in the USNO-A2.0 catalog from which an
341: aspect offset of 0.6$^{\prime\prime}$ was determined for the \chandra\
342: data. There were nine optical counterparts to X-ray sources in the
343: SN~2005gj field which resulted in an aspect correction of
344: 1.0$^{\prime\prime}$ to the \chandra\ data. One X-ray source showed a
345: clear optical counterpart for the SN~2005ke observation. The
346: positional offset was less than 0.1$^{\prime\prime}$ so no adjustment
347: was applied to the \chandra\ astrometry.
348:
349: Grayscale images of the \chandra\ data are presented in
350: Figures~\ref{bo_soft_img}--\ref{ke_soft_img} in two spectral bands:
351: 0.5--2 keV (left) and 2-6 keV (right). The small insert in the lower
352: right corner of each panel shows the raw \chandra\ data in the
353: immediate vicinity of each SN. There are no detected X-ray photons in
354: a 1$^{\prime\prime}$ (radius) circle centered on the positions of
355: either SN~2002bo or SN~2005ke. Only two photons (with energies of
356: approximate 1.1 keV and 3.6 keV) were detected at the position of
357: SN~2002ic. Two photons (with energies of 4.0 keV and 7.7 keV) were also
358: detected at the position of SN~2002gj These are clearly not significant
359: detections and so in the following we demonstrate how we obtained
360: upper limits to the X-ray flux of each SN. Since the range of allowed
361: spectral models is large, we developed a technique that allows us to
362: determine upper limits for just about any spectral form imaginable.
363:
364: \begin{figure*}
365: \epsscale{.45}
366: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002bo_gray_cont2.ps}
367: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002bo_gray_cont2a.ps}
368: \plotone{f1a.eps}
369: \plotone{f1b.eps}
370: \caption{
371: \chandra\ ACIS-S X-ray images of the vicinity of SN~2002bo
372: in the 0.5--2 keV (left) and 2--6 keV (right) bands displayed
373: with 1.968$^{\prime\prime}$ pixel binning (block 4). The various
374: circles and ellipses denote spectral extraction regions (see text).
375: The small insert panel at the bottom right shows the raw data
376: in the immediate vicinity of the SN in unblocked pixels
377: (i.e., 0.492$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 0.492$^{\prime\prime}$). This
378: image is centered on the SN position and the axis labels are in
379: units of arcseconds as indicated.
380: }
381: \label{bo_soft_img}
382: \label{bo_hard_img}
383: \end{figure*}
384:
385: \begin{figure*}
386: \epsscale{.45}
387: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002ic_gray_cont2.ps}
388: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002ic_gray_cont2a.ps}
389: \plotone{f2a.eps}
390: \plotone{f2b.eps}
391: \caption{ \chandra\ ACIS-S X-ray images of the vicinity of SN~2005ic.
392: The two circles denote spectral extraction regions (see text). Otherwise
393: similar to figure~\ref{bo_soft_img}.
394: }
395: \label{ic_soft_img}
396: \label{ic_hard_img}
397: \end{figure*}
398:
399: \begin{figure*}
400: \epsscale{.45}
401: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005gj_gray_cont2.ps}
402: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005gj_gray_cont2a.ps}
403: \plotone{f3a.eps}
404: \plotone{f3b.eps}
405: \caption{ \chandra\ ACIS-S X-ray images of the vicinity of SN~2005gj.
406: Otherwise similar to figure~\ref{bo_soft_img}.
407: }
408: \label{gj_soft_img}
409: \label{gj_hard_img}
410: \end{figure*}
411:
412: \begin{figure*}
413: \epsscale{.45}
414: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_gray_cont2.ps}
415: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_gray_cont2a.ps}
416: \plotone{f4a.eps}
417: \plotone{f4b.eps}
418: \caption{ \chandra\ ACIS-S X-ray images of the vicinity of SN~2005ke.
419: The various circles and ellipses denote spectral extraction regions
420: (see text). Otherwise similar to figure~\ref{bo_soft_img}.
421: }
422: \label{ke_soft_img}
423: \label{ke_hard_img}
424: \end{figure*}
425:
426: One essential key to our method is to obtain an accurate spectral
427: model for the background. To this end we extracted spectra from the
428: large circular regions shown on
429: Figures~\ref{bo_soft_img}--\ref{ke_soft_img}, excluding all
430: serendipitous point sources and for each of SN~2002bo and SN~2002ke, an
431: elliptical region centered on the host galaxy that encompasses all the
432: galaxy's apparent X-ray emission. The detector spectral response
433: function (calculated using mkacisrmf) as well as the overall effective
434: area function were determined at a large number of detector positions
435: within the extraction region and then weighted by the spatial
436: distribution of detected events to produce final weighted response
437: functions. The black data points near the bottom of
438: Figures~\ref{bo_spec} and \ref{ke_spec}
439: show the background spectra
440: used for SN~2002bo and SN~2005ke (the other cases are similar to
441: these two). Note that the spectra were rebinned to a
442: signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$3 for display only; spectral fits were
443: carried out on the original unbinned spectral data.
444: The curve through these points indicates
445: our best fit model, which consists of two power law components to
446: describe the non-X-ray (i.e., particle) background, three narrow lines
447: to account for instrumental
448: fluorescence lines from Si and Au, and two astrophysical
449: models: a low
450: temperature thermal model for the local Galactic emission and a hard
451: power law for the unresolved cosmic X-ray background. These later
452: models included interstellar absorption using the Galactic values
453: \citep{dicloc90}: $N_{\rm H} = 2.1\times 10^{20}\, \rm cm^{-2}$
454: (SN~2002bo), $N_{\rm H} = 6.2\times 10^{20}\, \rm cm^{-2}$ (SN~2002ic),
455: $N_{\rm H} = 7.1\times 10^{20}\, \rm cm^{-2}$ (SN~2005gj), and $N_{\rm
456: H} = 1.4\times 10^{20}\, \rm cm^{-2}$ (SN~2005ke). One of the
457: non-X-ray background power law models is required to model the
458: spectrum below $\sim$5 keV; the other one fits the sharp upturn in
459: emission beyond 7 keV. Overall the non-X-ray background dominates the
460: spectrum above about 2 keV. The fits were carried out using a maximum
461: likelihood figure-of-merit function for Poisson-distributed data (the
462: so-called ``c-stat'' option in xspec). The background models for all
463: four targets are similar as are the quality of the fits, which are
464: acceptable from a statistical point-of-view (determined by examining the
465: $\chi^2$ values on grouped data).
466:
467: \begin{figure}
468: \epsscale{1.0}
469: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002bo_spec.eps}
470: \plotone{f5.eps}
471: \caption{ACIS-S spectra of the background (black, bottom) and
472: several regions in NGC~3190: outer galaxy (blue), mid galaxy (green),
473: inner galaxy (red), and nucleus (black, top).
474: }
475: \label{bo_spec}
476: \end{figure}
477:
478: \begin{figure}
479: \epsscale{1.0}
480: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_spec.eps}
481: \plotone{f6.eps}
482: \caption{ACIS-S spectra of the background (black, bottom) and several
483: regions in NGC~1371: outer galaxy (blue), inner galaxy (red), and
484: nucleus (black, top).
485: }
486: \label{ke_spec}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489:
490: Detector spectral response and effective area functions were
491: calculated as above for the SN regions. We assume that the background
492: intensity is uniform on arcminute spatial scales near the detector
493: aimpoint and that its spectral form does not vary with position
494: either. Thus we can scale the background models to the SN regions
495: using the ratio of detector pixels in the source and background
496: spectral extraction regions. When this is done, we find that the
497: background model predicts the detection of 0.19 events (SN~2002bo),
498: 0.20 events (SN~2002ic), 0.50 events (SN~2005gj), and 0.14 events
499: (SN~2005ke) over the entire Chandra band. The number of events
500: actually detected in the observations of SN~2002bo and SN~2005ke (0 for
501: each) is consistent with their respective background rates. The Poisson
502: probability to detect 2 (or more) X-ray photons when 0.2 are expected,
503: as is the case for SN~2002ic, is only 1.7\%. The Poisson probability
504: to detect 2 (or more) X-ray photons purely from background in the case
505: of SN~2005gj is 9\%.
506:
507: We determine flux upper limits for a specific assumed astrophysical
508: spectral model (including the measured redshifts for SN~2002ic and
509: SN~2005gj), by adding it to the background model and then increasing
510: its normalization until the c-stat value increases by $\Delta = 9$,
511: which is the 3 $\sigma$ confidence level criterion. Results for two
512: X-ray flux bands are shown in Tables~\ref{tab_bo} to \ref{tab_ke} and
513: plots of the variation of the c-stat value vs.~the total 0.5--10 keV
514: band X-ray flux are shown in Fig.~\ref{xrfl}. All quoted fluxes have
515: been corrected to remove Galactic absorption for SN~2002ic, SN~2005gj,
516: and SN~2005ke, and the absorption from the host galaxy for
517: SN~2002bo. The first set of four models in these tables (dashed curves
518: in the figure) assume thermal plasma emission with no intrinsic
519: absorption, normal solar composition and temperatures from 2 to 20
520: keV. The second set of four models (solid curves in the figure)
521: assume a hot ($kT=80$ keV) bremsstrahlung model with varying amounts
522: of intrinsic absorption: from $N_{\rm H}= 1\times 10^{22}\,\rm
523: cm^{-2}$ to $N_{\rm H}=8\times 10^{22}\,\rm cm^{-2}$. Uncertainty in
524: the level of the background has a very small effect on the flux upper
525: limits. For example, assuming a 20\% variation in the level of the
526: model background for SN~2002ic introduces a $\sim$3\% change in
527: the derived flux limit for the hard spectral model.
528:
529: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
530: \tablewidth{0pt}
531: \tablecaption{X-ray Flux Limits (3 $\sigma$) for SN~2002bo}
532: \tablecolumns{4}
533: \tablehead{
534: \colhead{$kT$} &
535: \colhead{Intrinsic $N_{\rm H}$} &
536: \colhead{Flux} &
537: \colhead{Flux} \\
538: \colhead{(keV)} &
539: \colhead{(atoms cm$^{-2}$)} &
540: \colhead{(0.5--2 keV)} &
541: \colhead{(2--10 keV)} }
542: \startdata
543: 2 & $\dots$ & $1.2\times 10^{-15}$ & $6.8\times 10^{-16}$ \\
544: 5 & $\dots$ & $9.9\times 10^{-16}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-15}$ \\
545: 10 & $\dots$ & $9.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.2\times 10^{-15}$ \\
546: 20 & $\dots$ & $8.5\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.5\times 10^{-15}$ \\
547: 80 & $1\times 10^{22}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-16}$ & $4.1\times 10^{-15}$ \\
548: 80 & $2\times 10^{22}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $5.4\times 10^{-15}$ \\
549: 80 & $4\times 10^{22}$ & $8.3\times 10^{-17}$ & $7.1\times 10^{-15}$ \\
550: 80 & $8\times 10^{22}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-17}$ & $9.2\times 10^{-15}$ \\
551: \enddata
552: \label{tab_bo}
553: \end{deluxetable}
554:
555: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
556: \tablewidth{0pt}
557: \tablecaption{X-ray Flux Limits (3 $\sigma$) for SN~2002ic}
558: \tablecolumns{4}
559: \tablehead{
560: \colhead{$kT$} &
561: \colhead{Intrinsic $N_{\rm H}$} &
562: \colhead{Flux} &
563: \colhead{Flux} \\
564: \colhead{(keV)} &
565: \colhead{(atoms cm$^{-2}$)} &
566: \colhead{(0.5--2 keV)} &
567: \colhead{(2--10 keV)} }
568: \startdata
569: 2 & $\dots$ & $3.0\times 10^{-15}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-15}$ \\
570: 5 & $\dots$ & $2.7\times 10^{-15}$ & $4.2\times 10^{-15}$ \\
571: 10 & $\dots$ & $2.5\times 10^{-15}$ & $5.8\times 10^{-15}$ \\
572: 20 & $\dots$ & $2.4\times 10^{-15}$ & $6.9\times 10^{-15}$ \\
573: 80 & $1\times 10^{22}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-15}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-14}$ \\
574: 80 & $2\times 10^{22}$ & $6.5\times 10^{-16}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-14}$ \\
575: 80 & $4\times 10^{22}$ & $2.4\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-14}$ \\
576: 80 & $8\times 10^{22}$ & $3.8\times 10^{-17}$ & $2.5\times 10^{-14}$ \\
577: \multispan2{Chugai Model -- Day 260} & $9.0\times 10^{-17}$ & $2.2\times 10^{-14}$ \\
578: \enddata
579: \label{tab_ic}
580: \end{deluxetable}
581:
582: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
583: \tablewidth{0pt}
584: \tablecaption{X-ray Flux Limits (3 $\sigma$) for SN~2005gj}
585: \tablecolumns{4}
586: \tablehead{
587: \colhead{$kT$} &
588: \colhead{Intrinsic $N_{\rm H}$} &
589: \colhead{Flux} &
590: \colhead{Flux} \\
591: \colhead{(keV)} &
592: \colhead{(atoms cm$^{-2}$)} &
593: \colhead{(0.5--2 keV)} &
594: \colhead{(2--10 keV)} }
595: \startdata
596: 2 & $\dots$ & $4.4\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.3\times 10^{-16}$ \\
597: 5 & $\dots$ & $4.7\times 10^{-16}$ & $7.3\times 10^{-16}$ \\
598: 10 & $\dots$ & $4.6\times 10^{-16}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-15}$ \\
599: 20 & $\dots$ & $4.6\times 10^{-16}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-15}$ \\
600: 80 & $1\times 10^{22}$ & $2.7\times 10^{-16}$ & $3.4\times 10^{-15}$ \\
601: 80 & $2\times 10^{22}$ & $1.8\times 10^{-16}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-15}$ \\
602: 80 & $4\times 10^{22}$ & $7.7\times 10^{-17}$ & $6.5\times 10^{-15}$ \\
603: 80 & $8\times 10^{22}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-17}$ & $8.9\times 10^{-15}$ \\
604: \enddata
605: \label{tab_gj}
606: \end{deluxetable}
607:
608: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
609: \tablewidth{0pt}
610: \tablecaption{X-ray Flux Limits (3 $\sigma$) for SN~2005ke}
611: \tablecolumns{4}
612: \tablehead{
613: \colhead{$kT$} &
614: \colhead{Intrinsic $N_{\rm H}$} &
615: \colhead{Flux} &
616: \colhead{Flux} \\
617: \colhead{(keV)} &
618: \colhead{(atoms cm$^{-2}$)} &
619: \colhead{(0.5--2 keV)} &
620: \colhead{(2--10 keV)} }
621: \startdata
622: 2 & $\dots$ & $9.4\times 10^{-16}$ & $5.4\times 10^{-16}$ \\
623: 5 & $\dots$ & $8.5\times 10^{-16}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-15}$ \\
624: 10 & $\dots$ & $8.0\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-15}$ \\
625: 20 & $\dots$ & $7.7\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.3\times 10^{-15}$ \\
626: 80 & $1\times 10^{22}$ & $4.2\times 10^{-16}$ & $5.4\times 10^{-15}$ \\
627: 80 & $2\times 10^{22}$ & $2.7\times 10^{-16}$ & $7.1\times 10^{-15}$ \\
628: 80 & $4\times 10^{22}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-16}$ & $9.2\times 10^{-15}$ \\
629: 80 & $8\times 10^{22}$ & $1.8\times 10^{-17}$ & $1.2\times 10^{-14}$ \\
630: \enddata
631: \label{tab_ke}
632: \end{deluxetable}
633:
634: \begin{figure*}
635: \epsscale{.4}
636: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002bo_flux2.eps}
637: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002ic_flux2.eps}
638: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005gj_flux2.eps}
639: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_flux2.eps}
640: \plotone{f7a.eps}
641: \plotone{f7b.eps}
642: \plotone{f7c.eps}
643: \plotone{f7d.eps}
644: \caption{ X-ray flux limits in the 0.5--10 keV band for SN~2002bo
645: (top left), SN~2002ic (top right), SN~2005gj (bottom left) and
646: SN~2005ke (bottom right). The likelihood fit statistic
647: (``c-stat'') is plotted as a function of the X-ray flux limit. Solid
648: curves come from assuming thermal plasma models with different
649: temperatures: $kT=2$ (red), 5 (blue), 10 (green), and 20 (black) keV.
650: Dashed curves come from assuming a hot ($kT=80$ keV) bremsstrahlung
651: emission model with different amounts of intrinsic absorption: $N_{\rm
652: H} = 1\times 10^{22}$ (red), $N_{\rm H} = 2\times 10^{22}$ (blue),
653: $N_{\rm H} = 4\times 10^{22}$ (green), and $N_{\rm H} = 8\times 10^{22}$
654: (black) atoms cm$^{-2}$. The horizontal dotted line near the top of
655: each panel denotes the 3-$\sigma$ criterion on the likelihood fit
656: statistic. The intersection of this line with the appropriate curve
657: provides the 3-$\sigma$ X-ray flux upper limit (to be read off the
658: x-axis).}
659: \label{xrfl}
660: \end{figure*}
661:
662: Fig.~\ref{ic_speclimits} graphically illustrates how the upper
663: limits depend on the assumed spectral shape.
664: Each curve here corresponds
665: to the upper limit for that spectrum allowed by the \chandra\ data.
666: Clearly more hard band emission is allowed if the soft band is
667: depressed, and vice versa.
668:
669:
670: \begin{figure}
671: \epsscale{1.0}
672: %\plotone{./plots/sn2002ic_spectrallimits.eps}
673: \plotone{f8.eps}
674: \caption{Maximum allowed X-ray emission (at 3 $\sigma$)
675: from SN~2002ic for several different assumed spectral forms.
676: Curves with emission lines are for thermal models with
677: normal (solar) composition, no intrinsic absorption, and a
678: range of different temperatures:
679: $kT=2$ keV (cyan), $kT=5$ keV (red), $kT=10$ keV (green), $kT=20$ keV
680: (blue).
681: Smooth curves are for a hard bremsstrahlung model ($kT=80$ keV) and
682: varying amounts of intrinsic absorption: $N_{\rm H}= 1\times 10^{22}\,\rm
683: cm^{-2}$ (cyan), $N_{\rm H}= 2\times 10^{22}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ (red),
684: $N_{\rm H}= 4\times 10^{22}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ (green), and $N_{\rm H}=
685: 8\times 10^{22}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ (blue).}
686: \label{ic_speclimits}
687: \end{figure}
688:
689: Some comments on Fig.~\ref{xrfl} are warranted. The top left panel
690: (SN~2002bo) shows a steady rise in the c-stat value as the flux (or
691: normalization) of the assumed spectral model is increased. The top
692: right panel (SN~2002ic) shows a slightly different behavior: the c-stat
693: value initially {\it decreases} as the flux of the model increases
694: until it reaches a minimum after which it begins to grow rapidly.
695: What is happening is that the added spectral model is accounting for
696: the 2 detected photons in the SN~2002ic spectrum. The reduction in the
697: c-stat value is $\Delta \sim 8$ which is significant at between 2 and
698: 3 $\sigma$. The curves for SN~2005gj resemble those for SN~2002ic for
699: essentially the same reason, while the curves for SN~2005ke (for which
700: no photons were detected) resemble SN~2002bo.
701:
702: Finally we compare our X-ray flux limits for SN~2005gj with those
703: quoted by \citet{prietoetal07}: $5\times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$
704: s$^{-1}$ (at 68\% confidence level) and $9\times 10^{-16}$ ergs
705: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (at 95.5\% confidence level) for the 0.5--8 keV
706: band. The spectral form they assumed (an unabsorbed power law with
707: photon index $\Gamma = -2$) is roughly comparable to our thermal
708: plasma model with $kT = 10$ keV. We utilize Fig.~\ref{xrfl} to
709: convert to the 68\% (c-stat $\Delta = 1$) and 95.5\% (c-stat $\Delta =
710: 4$) confidence levels and obtain comparable flux limits (0.5--10 keV
711: band) of $4\times 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and $9\times
712: 10^{-16}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively.
713:
714: \subsection{Re-evaluation of tentative Swift X-ray detection of SN~2005ke}
715:
716: The importance of the tentative detection of SN~2005ke by the Swift
717: X-ray Telescope (XRT) instrument cannot be overstated, yet the
718: original report \citep{immler06} provided only a brief summary of the
719: data reduction and analysis. We undertook an independent analysis of
720: these data in order to address some issues that we considered to be
721: incompletely resolved in the published study.
722:
723: We downloaded the archival Swift XRT data on SN~2005ke observed during
724: the winter of 2005/2006 from the HEASARC. There were 43 separate
725: observations from 14 November 2005 until 5 March 2006 encompassing
726: ObsIDs from 0030341001 to 0030341008 and from 0030342001 to
727: 0030342036. Recently (March 2007) Swift reobserved SN~2005ke (ObsIDs
728: 0035898002 to 0035898004) and we examined these data as well. The
729: report on this recent observation can be summarized succinctly: no
730: photons were detected within 14$^{\prime\prime}$ of the SN position.
731: In our analysis of the rest of the data we began with the standard
732: cleaned events files utilizing only data in photon counting mode and
733: all good grades (0-12).
734:
735: The position of the nuclear X-ray source was located in each of the
736: separate observations and then images in a broad band (0.5-6 keV, pi
737: bins 50:600) were generated using this location for the image center.
738: The four shortest observations (exposures $<$ 100 s) gave no detected
739: photons from the nucleus and were excluded from further consideration.
740: The total dead-time corrected exposure in the merged image was 251.0
741: ks.
742:
743: We registered the Swift data to the \chandra\ data using the observed
744: positions of 11 fairly bright X-ray sources that contained at least 30
745: counts in the merged Swift image. A simple linear 4$^{\prime\prime}$
746: shift in position was sufficient to bring the Swift and \chandra\
747: positions into agreement with a scatter in the relative after-shift
748: positions of $<$1$^{\prime\prime}$.
749: The accuracy of the \chandra\ positional
750: astrometry was verified, as mentioned above, using the cataloged
751: position of an optical star detected in the X-rays.
752: Figure~\ref{ke_swchha_img} shows the Swift (left panel) and \chandra\
753: (middle panel) broad band images highlighting the region covering the
754: supernova position and the nucleus of NGC~1371.
755:
756: \begin{figure*}
757: \epsscale{.375}
758: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_gray_cont4.ps}
759: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_gray_cont3.ps}
760: %\plotone{./plots/sn2005ke_gray_cont5.ps}
761: \plotone{f9a.eps}
762: \plotone{f9b.eps}
763: \plotone{f9c.eps}
764: \caption{
765: The left and middle panels show X-ray images of the vicinity of
766: SN~2005ke from the Swift XRT (left) and \chandra\ ACIS-S (middle).
767: The solid-linetype circle near the middle of these panels denote the
768: extraction regions for SN~2005ke (9$^{\prime\prime}$ radius for Swift,
769: 1$^{\prime\prime}$ radius for \chandra). In the case of Swift the
770: small dotted-linetype circles denote the locations from which
771: background was obtained. Note that the 4 background and single source
772: regions are equidistant
773: from the center of the bright nuclear emission (as noted by the large
774: dashed-linetype circle which has a 1$^\prime$ radius).
775: The right panel shows the H$\alpha$ emission
776: from NCG~1371 originally presented in \citet{hamdev99}.
777: All three images cover the same field of view.
778: }
779: \label{ke_swchha_img}
780: \end{figure*}
781:
782: The broadband Swift and \chandra\ count rates were determined for the
783: aforementioned 11 sources in addition to 9 other fainter ones. These
784: are essentially all the compact X-ray sources within $\sim$5$^\prime$
785: of the \chandra\ optical axis. For Swift the rates were extracted
786: from within 9$^{\prime\prime}$ radius circular regions and then
787: multiplied by two to account for the point-spread function (PSF) of
788: the telescope (the half-power diameter at 1.5 keV is
789: 18$^{\prime\prime}$). The \chandra\ point source extraction regions
790: were large enough to capture $>$90\% of the source flux.
791: Figure~\ref{ke_compare_rates} plots the Swift vs.\ \chandra\ count rates.
792: The rates are well correlated and within the errors most of the
793: sources (14/20) are consistent with the best-fit average ratio of
794: rates (Swift to \chandra) of $\sim$0.19 (shown as the long dashed line in
795: the figure). This is close to the ratio of effective areas at 1.5 keV
796: for the two observatories (135 cm$^2$ / 600 cm$^2$ $\approx$ 0.225),
797: which is shown as the short dashed line in the figure. The six sources that
798: deviate from the average ratio of rates do so by generally no more
799: than about a factor of two and are likely just time variable sources.
800:
801: \begin{figure}
802: \epsscale{1.0}
803: %\plotone{./plots/sm_comparerates.ps}
804: \plotone{f10.eps}
805: \caption{
806: \chandra\ ACIS-S vs.\ Swift XRT count rates and 1 $\sigma$ error bars
807: for unresolved X-ray sources in the field of view of the SN~2005ke
808: observations. The long dashed line shows the mean ratio of rates from
809: the measured data points. This is in good agreement with the ratio of
810: effective areas at 1.5 keV, which is shown as the short dashed line.
811: The hatched region across the middle of the plot shows the claimed
812: detection count rate and 1 $\sigma$ error from \citet{immler06}, while
813: the thick dark line shows our 3 $\sigma$ upper limit to the count rate.
814: }
815: \label{ke_compare_rates}
816: \end{figure}
817:
818: Having demonstrated the astrometric and photometric accuracy of the
819: Swift data, we are now in the position to determine the X-ray count
820: rate and detection significance of SN~2005ke. First we note that the
821: count rate of $2.2\times 10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ quoted by \citet{immler06}
822: would lead us to expect something like 25 detected photons, after
823: background subtraction, within our fiducial 9$^{\prime\prime}$ radius
824: circular region. In fact, we detect only 15 total events, which
825: includes both source and background emission. We estimate the
826: background using the 4 regions denoted with dotted circles in
827: Fig.~\ref{ke_swchha_img},
828: which are at least 18$^{\prime\prime}$ from the SN position, are all
829: equidistant ($\sim$1$^\prime$) from the center of the nuclear emission
830: (as indicated by the large dashed circle) and have the same
831: radius as the source region. This yields an estimate of $7.8\pm 1.4$
832: background events for the SN~2005ke source region. Our background
833: subtracted count rate (including the multiplicative PSF-correction
834: factor of 2) becomes $(5.7 \pm 3.3)\times 10^{-5}$ s$^{-1}$.
835: Even if we vary the source extraction region (by doubling it, for
836: example), the number of source counts never exceeds the background by
837: more than 2 $\sigma$. This is
838: not a significant detection, so we determine a count rate upper limit
839: of $1.6\times 10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ (at 3 sigma confidence) from the Swift
840: data. This corresponds roughly to a \chandra\ count rate of $8\times
841: 10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ (using a ratio of rates of 0.2), which is several
842: factors higher than the \chandra\ count rate upper limit we derived
843: for SN~2002bo.
844:
845: \section{Limits on the Ambient CSM}
846:
847: We use the model of \citet[hereafter CCL]{chug04} to determine
848: constraints on the density of the ambient medium surrounding SN~2002bo,
849: SN~2002ic, and SN~2005gj from our X-ray flux upper limits. We do not
850: consider SN~2005ke, since the time of X-ray observation ($>$40 days
851: after explosion) and the limit on X-ray luminosity
852: are both less constraining of
853: the SN models than is the case for SN~2002bo. Here we provide a brief
854: summary of the calculations; the reader is referred to CCL for more
855: details.
856:
857: The model considers interaction of the SN ejecta with spherically
858: symmetric, smooth circumstellar gas and treats the dynamics in a thin
859: shell approximation. The evolution is followed by solving the
860: equations of motion numerically assuming an exponential density
861: profile for the SN envelope and a power law CSM density profile (which
862: in the case of SN~2002ic includes different indices for different
863: radial ranges). Specifically, the density of SN~Ia ejecta is
864: described by the law $\rho=\rho_0\exp(-v/v_0)$, where $\rho_0$ and
865: $v_0$ are defined by the mass $M$ and kinetic energy $E$. We adopt a
866: typical ejecta mass $M=1.4~M_{\odot}$, and kinetic energy
867: $E=1.4\times10^{51}$ ergs \citep[the model PDD3 of][]{hofkho96}. The
868: outermost unburnt layers of the ejecta ($v>15000$ km s$^{-1}$) are
869: represented as pure oxygen. Interior to this the ejecta are Si- and
870: Fe-rich, while the CS wind is assumed to be hydrogen-rich. The
871: numerical model provides the time evolution of the shock radii,
872: velocities, and temperatures.
873:
874: The internal structures of the forward and reverse shocks are not
875: determined in the model, so the X-ray luminosity at age $t$ is
876: calculated from the instantaneous kinetic luminosity of the shock,
877: $L_{\rm x}=\eta L_{\rm kin}$ \citep{chefra94,chu92}. The radiation
878: efficiency factor $\eta$ is given by $\eta=t/(t+t_{\rm c})$, where
879: $t_{\rm c}$ is the cooling time of the post-shock gas. Electron and
880: ion temperatures are fully equilibrated for SN~2002ic and SN~2005gj
881: due to Coulomb collisions
882: (however, see below for SN~2002bo) and the shape of the emission is
883: given simply by a thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum at the appropriate
884: temperature; no line emission is included. This is a conservative
885: approximation, since including line emission would boost the modeled
886: X-ray emission and thereby decrease our limit on the ambient gas density.
887:
888: The reverse shock is essentially radiative in all cases we consider
889: here, so the shocked metal-rich SN ejecta create a cool dense shell
890: (CDS) at the contact discontinuity, which causes severe absorption of
891: X-ray emission from the reverse shock. The absorption coefficient for
892: the metal-rich ejecta is given by $k_X \approx 5000 (E/1\, {\rm
893: keV})^{-8/3}$ cm$^2$ gm$^{-1}$. X-rays are also absorbed by the CSM,
894: although this material is assumed to be hydrogen-rich for which $k_X$
895: is some 50 times smaller. That portion of the total X-ray luminosity
896: absorbed by SN unshocked ejecta, CDS, and unshocked circumstellar (CS)
897: gas is presumed to be fully re-emitted in the optical band.
898:
899: One of the most important quantities influencing the X-ray luminosity
900: of the SN/CSM interaction is the density of the wind. Typically this
901: has been expressed in terms of a constant wind speed, $v_w$, and mass
902: loss rate, $\dot{M}$, as $\rho_w = \dot{M} / (4\pi v_w r^2)$. The
903: quantity that we constrain with the \chandra\ observations is the wind
904: density parameter $w=\dot{M}/v_w$. When quoting mass loss rates we
905: will give values in terms of $v_{w10} \equiv v_{w}/10\, \rm km\,
906: s^{-1}$.
907:
908: \subsection{SN~2002bo}
909:
910: It is doubtful that the shocked electrons and ions in the forward shock
911: reach temperature
912: equilibration in the low density CS wind around SN~2002bo. In general
913: the average post-shock electron temperature, $T_e$, will be in the range
914: $\mu_e/\bar{\mu}\leq T_e/T_i\leq 1$, where $\mu_e=m_e/m_p=1/1840$ and
915: $\bar{\mu}$ is the mean molecular weight. We calculate
916: intermediate values of the electron temperature using the relation
917: $T_e / T_i = 1 - [1-(\mu_e/\bar{\mu})] [1-\exp(-\theta)]/\theta$,
918: where $\theta=t/t_{\rm eq}$ and $t_{\rm eq}$, the Coulomb
919: equilibration time, is evaluated conservatively assuming $T_e=T_i$.
920: This expression is the average $T_e/T_i$ for an adiabatic plane shock
921: in a homogeneous medium at age $t$ for a constant post-shock
922: equilibration timescale. Because we use the maximal value of $t_{\rm
923: eq}$, the value of $T_e$ recovered in this way will be underestimated,
924: and accordingly, our wind density constraints will be somewhat
925: overestimated.
926:
927: We ran a set of models with wind density parameter values in the range
928: $6\times10^{14}$ g cm$^{-1}$ to $3\times10^{15}$ g cm$^{-1}$
929: without assuming complete temperature equilibration
930: for a SN age of 9.3
931: d and distance of 22 Mpc \citep{kris04}. Each trial spectrum was input
932: to the spectral fitting program and compared to the \chandra\
933: data in exactly the same manner as described above (\S~\ref{s-obs}).
934: A value of $w=1.2\times10^{15}$ g cm$^{-1}$ was found to be the
935: maximum value allowed by the \chandra\ data at the 99\% confidence
936: level. Fig.~\ref{bo_mod} plots this model along with a rejected case
937: with higher wind density parameter and, for reference, we plot the
938: broadband flux upper limits for the absorbed bremsstrahlung model with
939: $N_H=2\times 10^{22}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$.
940:
941: \begin{figure}
942: %\plotone{./plots/chugai_nopeter_sn02bo.ps}
943: \plotone{f11.eps}
944: \caption{
945: Model X-ray emission from SN~2002bo on day 9.3 after explosion. The
946: upper panel shows the case with non-equilibrated temperatures
947: ($T_e<T_i$) for wind density parameters of $w=1.2\times10^{15}$ g
948: cm$^{-1}$ (solid curve) and $w=3\times10^{15}$ g
949: cm$^{-1}$ (dashed
950: curve), corresponding, respectively, to models ``neq12'' and ``neq30''
951: in table~\ref{tab_bomod}.
952: The lower panel shows the model spectra with equal electron
953: and ion temperatures for $w=6\times10^{13}$ g cm$^{-1}$
954: (solid curve, model ``eq0.6'')
955: and $w=1.5\times10^{14}$ g cm$^{-1}$ (dashed curve, model ``eq1.5'').
956: In each panel
957: the solid curve corresponds to the 99\% upper limit on X-ray emission;
958: the dashed curve indicates how the spectra vary with increasing wind
959: density parameter. For comparison we plot representative \chandra\
960: upper limits in two broad energy bands using the absorbed
961: bremsstrahlung model with $N_H=2\times 10^{22}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$.
962: %
963: }
964: \label{bo_mod}
965:
966: \end{figure}
967:
968:
969: At about 10 keV the model flux is dominated by the reverse shock
970: emission, while the forward shock with its cooler electrons produces
971: the weaker peak at about 1 keV. The low electron temperature of the
972: forward shock is the result of inefficient equilibration in the low
973: density wind. The electron and ion temperatures in the reverse shock,
974: on the contrary, are close to equilibrated. Moreover, the reverse
975: shock is radiative during the initial period up to $\sim$28 days for
976: wind parameters in the range being considered. The cool dense shell
977: of the reverse shock is responsible for the strong absorption of
978: X-rays from the reverse shock.
979:
980: Given that the amount of collisionless electron heating at the forward
981: shock is highly uncertain we also ran a set of models for the
982: equipartition case, $T_e=T_i$. Here the maximal wind density parameter
983: is $w=6\times10^{13}$ g cm$^{-1}$ (Fig.~\ref{bo_mod}). Remarkably, in
984: the latter case the peak at $\sim$1 keV is dominated by Comptonization
985: of the SN radiation by the hot electrons of the forward shock. The
986: Comptonized spectral component is described by a power law $\propto
987: E^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha$ dependence on $\tau_{\rm T}$ and
988: $kT_e/m_ec^2$ taken according to \citet{PSS76}.
989:
990: For reference in Table~\ref{tab_bomod} we present numerical values for
991: the parameters corresponding to the interaction models for SN~2002bo on
992: day 9.3 that are plotted in Fig.~\ref{bo_mod}. The top two models correspond
993: to the non-equilibrated shocks ($T_e<T_i$), while the other two models
994: correspond to the equilibrated ones ($T_e=T_i$). The columns
995: list: a model designation, the wind density parameter
996: ($w$), thin shell radius ($R_{\rm s}$), velocity of the reverse
997: ($v_{\rm RS}$) and forward ($v_{\rm FS}$) shocks, electron temperature
998: of the reverse ($T_{e,{\rm RS}}$) and forward ($T_{e,{\rm FS}}$)
999: shocks, hydrogen column density of the CS gas ($N_{\rm H}$) for
1000: $r>R_{\rm s}$ assuming H abundance $X=0.7$. The last column gives the
1001: mass of the cool dense shell formed by the shocked SN ejecta. This
1002: metal-rich matter strongly suppresses X-rays from the reverse shock and
1003: partially absorbs X-rays from the rear side of the forward shock.
1004:
1005: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
1006: \tablewidth{0pt}
1007: \tablecaption{SN~2002bo Model Parameters}
1008: \tablecolumns{9}
1009: \tablehead{
1010: \colhead{Model} &
1011: \colhead{$w$} &
1012: \colhead{$R_{\rm s}$} &
1013: \colhead{$v_{\rm RS}$} &
1014: \colhead{$v_{\rm FS}$} &
1015: \colhead{$T_{e,{\rm RS}}$} &
1016: \colhead{$T_{e,{\rm FS}}$} &
1017: \colhead{$N_{\rm H}$} &
1018: \colhead{$M_{\rm CDS}$} \\
1019: &
1020: \colhead{\small ($10^{14}$ g cm$^{-1}$)} &
1021: \colhead{\small ($10^{15}$ cm)} &
1022: \colhead{\small ($10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$)} &
1023: \colhead{\small ($10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$)} &
1024: \colhead{\small (keV)} &
1025: \colhead{\small (keV)} &
1026: \colhead{\small ($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$)} &
1027: \colhead{\small ($10^{-3}~M_{\odot}$)} }
1028: \startdata
1029: neq12 & 12 & 2.22 & 2.68 & 24.9 & 18.3 & 1.93 & 18 & 5.6 \\
1030: neq30 & 30 & 2.02 & 2.72 & 22.4 & 22.6 & 4.76 & 50 & 11 \\
1031: eq0.6 & 0.6 & 2.81 & 2.18 & 32.7 & 16.5 & 1290 & 0.71 & 0.33 \\
1032: eq1.5 & 1.5 & 2.64 & 2.41 & 30.4 & 20.1 & 1110 & 1.9 & 0.92 \\
1033: \enddata
1034: \label{tab_bomod}
1035: \end{deluxetable*}
1036:
1037: We also applied Lundqvist's models for the X-ray emission emerging
1038: from the presumed wind surrounding a SN Ia (Lundqvist et al.~2007, in
1039: preparation). Note that there are some differences in assumptions and
1040: details in this model compared to those just presented. However our
1041: intent here is not to resolve these differences, but rather to present
1042: an independent estimate of the expected X-ray flux from the
1043: interaction between SN Ia ejecta and CSM at early times. Lundqvist's
1044: models use a similarity solution \citep{che82a} for the evolution with
1045: power law indices of $n=7$ in the ejecta and $s=2$ in the wind. The
1046: velocities of the forward and reverse shock at 9.3 days after
1047: explosion are $2.9\times 10^{4}$ km s$^{-1}$ and $7.0\times 10^{3}$ km
1048: s$^{-1}$, respectively. The full ejecta density and temperature
1049: structure from the similarity solution is used for calculating the
1050: X-ray emission, assuming that the composition of the outer ejecta is
1051: equal parts of carbon and oxygen. We verified that the density in the
1052: reverse shocked ejecta is sufficient to assure that the electron and
1053: ion temperatures are equilibrated there. In these models a radiative
1054: cold dense shell does not form and so it is emission from the reverse
1055: shock that dominates (and in fact these calculations do not include
1056: forward shock emission). Only thermal emission is included; although
1057: inverse Compton scattering could be an important contribution
1058: \citep[see, e.g., Fig.~7 in][for the case of SN1993J]{franetal96}, we
1059: ignore it here (which is again a conservative assumption as regards
1060: the limit on CSM density). Intrinsic absorption comes about only from
1061: the overlying CSM. Models were generated and compared to the
1062: \chandra\ spectrum as above. The wind density limit we obtain is
1063: comparable to those above: $w=1.6\times10^{14}$ g cm$^{-1}$.
1064:
1065: \subsection{SN~2002ic}
1066:
1067: SN~2002ic has been studied extensively. We take the position here that
1068: the intense late-time ($t>50$ d) optical luminosity of SN~2002ic is
1069: powered by the interaction of SN~Ia ejecta with a dense circumstellar
1070: environment \citep{ham03b,wang04,chug04,nomoto05}. The CCL interaction
1071: model that accounts for the optical luminosity and spectrum requires a
1072: dense stellar-wind-type density profile suggesting a high mass-loss
1073: rate ($\dot{M} \sim 10^{-2} v_{w10}\, M_\odot\, {\rm yr}^{-1}$) from
1074: the progenitor system \citep{chuyun04}. This model predicts an X-ray
1075: flux of order $10^{-6}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ kev$^{-1}$ in the
1076: 3--10 keV energy band for ages in the range $200-400$ d. The
1077: predicted X-ray flux on day 260 along with contributions of the
1078: reverse and forward shocks for the standard parameter set (CCL) is
1079: plotted in Fig.~\ref{ic_mod} for a distance 285 Mpc along with an
1080: estimate of the \chandra\ flux upper limit (using the most absorbed
1081: bremsstrahlung model with $N_H=8\times 10^{22}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$). We
1082: dub this model `unmixed' for reasons that will become clear below.
1083: The modeled X-ray flux is clearly dominated by the emission of the
1084: forward shock; emission from the reverse shock is absorbed by the cool
1085: dense shell formed in the radiative ejecta. We compared
1086: this spectrum to the \chandra\ data and found that the X-ray flux
1087: exceeds the observational upper limit by a factor of $\approx4.5$.
1088: The disagreement is significant and indicates that the model is
1089: incorrectly predicting the X-ray emission from the forward shock.
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}
1092: %\plotone{./plots/chugai_sn02ic.ps}
1093: \plotone{f12.eps}
1094: \caption{
1095: %
1096: The predicted emergent X-ray spectrum from SN~2002ic on day 260. For
1097: comparison we plot representative \chandra\ upper limits in two broad
1098: energy bands using the most absorbed bremsstrahlung model with
1099: $N_H=8\times 10^{22}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$. The upper panel shows the
1100: total flux ({\em thick solid}), flux from the forward shock ({\em
1101: dotted}), and flux from the reverse shock ({\em thin solid}) predicted
1102: by the model of CCL (see text). This model overpredicts the
1103: X-ray emission by a factor of $\sim$4.5. The lower panel displays the
1104: total X-ray flux computed for the same model as above but with
1105: fragments of cool dense ejecta homogeneously mixed in the forward
1106: shock region for different values of the occultation optical depth:
1107: $\tau_{\rm oc}=1$ ({\em dashed line}), $\tau_{\rm oc}=2$ ({\em thick
1108: solid line}), $\tau_{\rm oc}=5$ ({\em thin solid line}), and
1109: $\tau_{\rm oc}=10$ ({\em bottommost thin solid line}). The dashed
1110: curve is rejected by the \chandra\ observation and the $\tau_{\rm
1111: oc} \sim 2$ case corresponds to the 99\% allowed upper limit.
1112: %
1113: }
1114: \label{ic_mod}
1115: \end{figure}
1116:
1117: The model ignores possible deviation from spherical symmetry
1118: suggested by polarization data \citep{wang04}. Generally, if the CS
1119: gas is concentrated in a dense thin equatorial disk (thickness $\ll$
1120: radius), it is conceivable that the bulk of the kinetic energy of the
1121: interaction could be dissipated deep inside the SN envelope. As a
1122: result, the ratio of the emergent X-ray flux to the optical flux could
1123: be small because of strong absorption in the dense disk. However
1124: this is unlikely to be the case. Indeed, large deviations from global
1125: spherical symmetry for the interaction are ruled out by the similarity
1126: of line widths and profiles for all known SN~Ia with strong CS
1127: interaction, i.e., 2002ic, 1999E, 1997cy (CCL). Furthermore a modest
1128: level of asymmetry should not significantly affect the ratio of the
1129: emergent-to-absorbed X-ray luminosity compared to the spherical case.
1130:
1131: More serious consequences for the X-ray luminosity might result from
1132: the omission of the internal structure of the forward shock in the thin
1133: shell approximation. To estimate the error introduced by this
1134: approximation we computed a hydrodynamical model for the standard
1135: parameter set as before (CCL) using a one-dimension hydrodynamical
1136: Lagrangian code with artifical viscosity \citep[e.g.,][]{gull73}. On
1137: day 260 the radius of the contact discontinuity of the hydrodynamical
1138: model coincides with the radius of the thin shell model to an accuracy
1139: of 1\%. The forward shock structure of the hydrodynamical model was
1140: used to calculate the X-ray emission from the shocked gas assuming
1141: instant equilibration of ion and electron temperatures. The X-ray
1142: luminosity of the forward and reverse shocks is lower by factors of
1143: 1.5 and 1.3, respectively, compared to the thin shell model, while the
1144: temperature of the forward shock is greater (80 keV compared to 50 keV
1145: in the thin shell model). The lower X-ray luminosity of both shocks in
1146: the hydro model results in an optical luminosity lower by a factor of
1147: 1.3. To recover the optical bolometric luminosity the CS density in
1148: the hydro model needs to be slightly larger. We found that a
1149: $\approx$20\% increase in the CS density is sufficient to recover the
1150: required optical luminosity. The new total mass of the CS envelope is
1151: $\approx$1.9 $M_{\odot}$ within a $3\times10^{16}$ cm radius compared
1152: to $\approx$1.6 $M_{\odot}$ found in the thin shell approximation
1153: (CCL). The increase of the CS density by 20\% slightly increases the
1154: X-absorption thus reducing the peak of the X-ray flux by less than
1155: 20\%. We thus conclude that differences between the hydrodynamical
1156: and thin shell models are rather minor and cannot account for the
1157: significant disparity between the \chandra\ upper limit and the
1158: predicted X-ray flux.
1159:
1160: Two missing factors that could potentially resolve the issue are the
1161: Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability of the CDS and clumping of the CS
1162: gas. The RT instability of the shocked decelerated ejecta is a generic
1163: attribute of the SN/CS interaction \citep{che82b}, while the clumpiness
1164: of the CS matter around SN~2002ic has been invoked already to account
1165: for the H$\alpha$ line profile (CCL). The RT instability leads to
1166: fragmentation and mixing of CDS fragments with the hot gas of the
1167: forward shock
1168: \citep{cheblo95,bloell01}. Clumpiness of the CS matter favors more efficient
1169: mixing of the CDS fragments within the forward shock principally
1170: through two mechanisms. First, the CS clouds penetrate deep inside
1171: the intercloud shock before they get shocked, fragmented and mixed
1172: \citep{KMC94,blo01}. As a result the bulk of the kinetic energy
1173: related to CS clouds dissipates closer to the contact discontinuity.
1174: Second, the CS clouds engulfed by the intercloud shock generate vortex
1175: turbulence that favors more efficient penetration of the RT spikes in
1176: the forward shock \citep{JJN96}. We thus propose a scenario for
1177: SN~2002ic in which the forward shock is no longer a regular layer of
1178: hot gas but instead is a macroscopic {\em mixture of hot gas and cool
1179: metal-rich fragments} of the CDS. The major outcome of this
1180: modification should be an additional component of absorption of the
1181: X-ray emission from the forward shock by the intermixed fragments of
1182: metal-rich CDS.
1183:
1184: To illustrate this effect we will calculate the absorption of X-rays
1185: from the forward and reverse shocks assuming the same thin shell model
1186: as in CCL, but with the following corrections. The CDS is assumed to
1187: be fragmented and homogeneously mixed in the forward shock
1188: layer. Remarkably, the analysis of the optical spectrum of SN~2002ic
1189: suggests that the CDS is indeed fragmented and well mixed. The ratio
1190: of the cumulative area of clumps to the area of the spherical shell,
1191: which is a measure of mixing, was estimated to be $S/S_0\sim50$ on day
1192: 234 (CCL). The occultation optical depth of the fragmented CDS, i.e.,
1193: the average number of fragments on the line of sight in the shell for
1194: randomly oriented plane fragments is then $\tau_{\rm
1195: oc}=0.5(S/S_0)\sim25$. Small values of the occultation optical depth,
1196: $\tau_{\rm oc} \sim 1-2$, would mimic the possible presence of ``holes''
1197: in the mixing zone due to strong angular variation in the column density
1198: \citep{cheblo95}.
1199: Another relevant value is the average optical
1200: depth for X-rays $\tau$, which is determined by the average column
1201: density of CDS material and the X-ray absorption coefficient, for
1202: which we take the metal-rich case as given above. The effective
1203: optical depth of the ensemble of fragments is then $\tau_{\rm
1204: eff}=\tau_{\rm oc}[1-\exp(\tau/\tau_{\rm oc})]$. In the limit
1205: $\tau_{\rm eff}\gg 1$ the effect of mixing for a homogeneous thin
1206: spherical layer with unabsorbed luminosity $L_0$ is to reduce the
1207: emergent X-ray luminosity to a value of $L_0/(4\tau_{\rm
1208: eff})$. Indeed, only half of the photons emitted in a layer with
1209: thickness equal to the mean free path ($\Delta R/\tau_{\rm eff}$) can
1210: escape. The other factor of one-half comes from averaging over the
1211: angle between the photon direction and surface normal.
1212:
1213: The mixing we invoke may, however, be incomplete, which can be
1214: mimicked by adopting a lower occultation optical depth of the
1215: homogeneous layer, $\tau_{\rm oc}<25$. We also take into account
1216: additional absorption by the fragmented shocked CS clouds with normal
1217: composition, assuming that 50\% of the swept-up CS gas resides in the
1218: cool shocked cloud material with $\tau_{\rm oc, cs}=1$. This
1219: component, presumably responsible for the H$\alpha$ emission, produces
1220: negligible X-ray absorption.
1221:
1222: The computed total flux of escaping X-rays is presented in the lower panel of
1223: Fig.~\ref{ic_mod} for $\tau_{\rm oc}=1$, 2, 5 and 10, which vary from
1224: low to high degrees of mixing of CDS fragments into the forward shock
1225: region. The plot shows a pronounced effect on the X-ray absorption
1226: (see Fig.~\ref{ic_mod}) by the macroscopically mixed CDS
1227: material. The case $\tau_{\rm oc}=2$ corresponds to the maximal flux
1228: tolerated by the \chandra\ upper limit. This study indicates that
1229: mixing of the shocked SN ejecta with the hot gas of the forward shock
1230: can resolve the X-ray flux disparity between the original model that
1231: explains the optical spectrum (CCL) and the new \chandra\ observations
1232: of SN~2002ic.
1233:
1234: \subsection{SN~2005gj}
1235:
1236: According to its early spectrum and photometry, SN~2005gj is remarkably
1237: similar to SN~2002ic and very likely is a member of this new class of
1238: bright Ia SNe embedded in dense CS envelope. This position has been
1239: strengthened by the recent light curve and spectral study of
1240: \citet{aldetal06}. Their V- and I-band light curves for SN~2005gj match
1241: the shape of the early time evolutionary models of \citet{chuyun04}
1242: for SN~2002ic, although the models need to be scaled upward in
1243: brightness by 0.5 mag or so. The CSM interaction in SN~2005gj is
1244: evidentally stronger than in SN~2002ic. In the absence of a detailed
1245: hydrodynamical model for SN~2005gj, we utilize the same model and
1246: parameter values as for SN~2002ic.
1247: First we computed the X-ray flux at the \chandra\ observation epoch
1248: ($t\sim 80$ d) neglecting the effects of ejecta mixed into the forward
1249: shock. The resulting spectrum is presented in the upper panel of
1250: Fig.~\ref{gj_mod} for a distance to SN~2005gj of 266 Mpc together with
1251: an estimate of the \chandra\ broad band flux upper limits (using the
1252: most highly absorbed bremsstrahlung spectrum with $N_H=8\times
1253: 10^{22}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$). The model spectrum overpredicts the X-ray
1254: flux by a factor of 4. Although little is currently published about
1255: the environment of SN~2005gj, the \citet{aldetal06} study suggests that
1256: the density of the ambient medium is, if anything, higher than that
1257: around SN~2002ic, which exacerbates the discrepancy with the \chandra\
1258: flux limit. Therefore we next considered the mixing of CDS fragments
1259: into the forward shock region in the case of SN~2005gj. The required
1260: occultation optical depth to not exceed the \chandra\ limit is
1261: $\tau_{\rm oc}<2$ (Fig.~\ref{gj_mod}). Consequently, if the CS
1262: environment around SN~2005gj is as dense as that around SN~2002ic,
1263: mixing of the fragmented CDS must be already significant at this early
1264: epoch.
1265:
1266: \begin{figure}
1267: %\plotone{./plots/chugai_sn05gj.ps}
1268: \plotone{f13.eps}
1269: \caption{
1270: %
1271: The model X-ray spectrum of SN~2005gj. For comparison we plot
1272: representative \chandra\ upper limits in two broad energy bands using
1273: the highly absorbed bremsstrahlung spectrum with $N_H=8\times 10^{22}$
1274: atoms cm$^{-2}$. The upper panel shows the unmixed model used
1275: previously for SN~2002ic and recomputed at an epoch of $t\sim80$ d as
1276: appropriate for SN~2005gj. This model overpredicts the X-ray emission
1277: by a factor of $\sim$4. The lower panel displays the total X-ray flux
1278: computed for the same model as above but with fragments of cool dense
1279: ejecta homogeneously mixed in the forward shock region for different
1280: values of the occultation optical depth: $\tau_{\rm oc}=1$ ({\em
1281: dashed line}), $\tau_{\rm oc}=2$ ({\em thick solid line}), $\tau_{\rm
1282: oc}=5$ ({\em thin solid line}), and $\tau_{\rm oc}=10$ ({\em
1283: bottommost thin solid line}). The dashed curve is rejected by the
1284: \chandra\ observation and the $\tau_{\rm oc} \sim 2$ case corresponds to
1285: the 99\% allowed upper limit.
1286: %
1287: }
1288: \label{gj_mod}
1289: \end{figure}
1290:
1291: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
1292:
1293: With our \chandra\ observation of SN~2002bo we have set the most
1294: sensitive X-ray flux upper limits at an earlier epoch than for any
1295: previous SN~Ia. The previous best case was that of SN~1992A for which a
1296: \rosat\ upper limit of $\sim$$10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ was
1297: set on the 0.5-2 keV band X-ray flux $\sim$35 days after explosion
1298: \citep{schpet93}. Our \chandra\ limit in the same energy band is an
1299: order of magnitude lower and was set only 9 days after explosion. We
1300: also set a sensitive upper limit in the important 2--10 keV band.
1301:
1302: Converting our flux upper limits to constraints on the density of the
1303: CSM in the system depends on uncertain assumptions about the
1304: thermodynamic state of the hot plasma in the expanding ejecta and
1305: shocked wind. As we have shown in this paper there is roughly an
1306: order of magnitude difference in the inferred wind density under the
1307: assumption of fully equilibrated electron and ion temperatures vs.\
1308: the case with non-equilibrated temperatures. The latter case yields
1309: the more conservative (i.e., higher) constraint: a wind density
1310: parameter $w < 1.2 \times 10^{15}$ g cm$^{-1}$. In terms of a slow
1311: wind with velocity of $v_{w10}=10$ km s$^{-1}$ this corresponds to a
1312: upper limit on the mass-loss rate of $\dot{M} < 2 \times
1313: 10^{-5}~M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. The much higher sensitivity of the
1314: \chandra\ data notwithstanding, this value is {\em larger} by a factor
1315: of 10 or so than the mass loss upper limit derived from \rosat\ data
1316: by \citet{schpet93} for SN~1992A. This discrepancy is due to the
1317: simplicity of the model used by \citet{schpet93} to evaluate their
1318: upper limit: they do not include absorption by residual wind material
1319: above the forward shock, assume electron-ion temperature
1320: equilibration, compare to model luminosities without applying a
1321: bolometric correction, and calculate the SN age from the time of
1322: maximum rather than from the time of explosion. In other comparisons
1323: our \chandra\ upper limit is comparable to those found previously from
1324: limits on the H$\alpha$ flux for the normal type Ia supernovae
1325: SN~1994D \citep{cumm96} and SN~2001el \citep{matetal05}. In general
1326: limits on $\dot{M}$ of $\sim$$10^{-5}~M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ are not
1327: stringent enough to rule out the class of symbiotic-type binaries as
1328: SN~Ia progenitors at least not for these particular cases.
1329:
1330: The value of these results lies in our ability to calculate, using
1331: well understood physics, the expected X-ray emission from hot gas.
1332: Viewed in this light, we briefly discuss limits on the CSM obtained
1333: from radio nondetections of a number of nearby SNe~Ia
1334: \citep{panagetal06}. The radio results rely on semi-empirical
1335: parameterized functional forms for the time- and frequency-dependence
1336: of synchrotron emission and free-free absorption, whose relevant
1337: parameters are assumed to have values given by radio results for
1338: SNe~Ib/c. Likewise the essential parameter, i.e., the one linking the
1339: wind density parameter to the radio luminosity of the SN, cannot be
1340: calculated from theory with any accuracy, and an empirical
1341: calibration, again drawn from measurements of SNe~Ib/c, must be used.
1342: Although the sensitive radio flux limits clearly argue for low density
1343: environments around SN~Ia, the extremely low numerical limits on the
1344: mass-loss rates claimed by \citet{panagetal06} cannot yet be
1345: considered definitive.
1346:
1347: The other normal SN~Ia we study here is SN~2002ke. We re-examine the
1348: claim by \citet{immler06} of a tentative X-ray detection by Swift and find
1349: that we cannot substantiate it. We pay particular attention to the
1350: astrometric and photometric calibration of the Swift X-ray data by
1351: comparing to a \chandra\ observation done several months later. We
1352: find no evidence for a significant X-ray detection of SN~2005ke by
1353: either Swift or \chandra, to a flux limit that is several factors
1354: higher than what we obtained for SN~2002bo. Since this limit is at a
1355: much later epoch, when the intensity of the CSM/ejecta interaction
1356: should be much reduced, we did not attempt to determine numerical
1357: limits to the wind density parameter for this SN.
1358:
1359: We have also presented \chandra\ upper limits for the two
1360: examples of SNe Ia with clear evidence for circumstellar interaction:
1361: SN~2002ic and SN~2005gj. The upper limit on the X-ray luminosity of
1362: SN~2002ic in the $0.5-6$ keV band unexpectedly reveals a serious
1363: drawback to the interaction model proposed previously (CCL): the
1364: predicted X-ray flux turns out to be larger by at least a factor of
1365: four. We identified the major missing element of the model responsible
1366: for the controversy: macroscopic mixing of cool metal-rich ejecta
1367: fragments into the hot gas of the forward shock, which results in
1368: strong absorption of the X-rays emitted by the forward shock.
1369: Interestingly, the absorption of X-rays by mixed shocked ejecta should
1370: have the effect of decreasing the required CS density in the model to
1371: explain the late time optical luminosity. This effect together
1372: with the higher radiation efficiency of the interaction with a clumpy
1373: CS matter should result in a slightly higher expansion velocity of the
1374: shocked SN ejecta in the interaction model. These outcomes appear to
1375: be preferred by the optical spectra of SN~2002ic (see CCL).
1376:
1377: SN~2005gj appears to belong to the SN~2002ic-like family of SN~Ia with
1378: dense CS envelopes \citep{aldetal06,prietoetal07}. The \chandra\ upper limit from
1379: this object at about day 80 is a factor of four larger than the
1380: flux predicted by the interaction model of SN~2002ic recomputed for
1381: the corresponding epoch. Although the strength of the interaction
1382: argues against it, one possible explanation is that the CS
1383: density around SN~2005gj is just somewhat lower than around SN~2002ic.
1384: A better possibility invokes mixing of the shocked ejecta, which can
1385: reduce the emergent X-ray flux. Which of these is more likely to be
1386: the correct explanation requires a better understanding of the
1387: environment of SN~2005gj than we have at present. Future studies of
1388: the optical light curve and spectra of this interesting object are
1389: strongy encouraged.
1390:
1391: Resolving the issue of the X-ray non-detection of SN~2002ic-like
1392: objects has its dark side due to our introduction of the parameter
1393: $\tau_{\rm oc}$, which is essentially incalculable. Even
1394: three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations are unlikely to be able
1395: to recover this value in a fully self-consistent way. We, therefore,
1396: can predict in detail neither the spectrum nor the evolution of the
1397: X-ray flux from SN~2002ic-like supernovae. Two relevant remarks can be
1398: made, however. First, in the case of SN~2002ic the model without
1399: mixing predicts an increasing X-ray flux in the band below 10 keV up
1400: until day $\sim$400 (CCL). Therefore, X-ray detection at earlier
1401: epochs is unlikely to be more favorable, as the lack of detection of
1402: SN~2005gj at roughly 80 days after explosion (versus 260 days for
1403: SN~2002ic) tends to support. The second remark relates to the
1404: spectrum of the emergent X-ray emission: hard X-rays (i.e., with
1405: photon energies greater than $\sim$20 keV) are not affected by the
1406: absorption that mutes the lower energy flux (see Fig.~\ref{ic_mod}).
1407: Future sensitive X-ray observations covering a wider energy band
1408: ($1-30$ keV), therefore, should reveal a SN~2002ic-like event as a
1409: strongly absorbed hard X-ray source and thus verify the proposed
1410: mixing scenario.
1411:
1412: \acknowledgments
1413:
1414: We appreciate the amount of effort required to successfully execute
1415: target of opportunity observations with \chandra\ and we gratefully
1416: acknowledge the entire \chandra\ operations staff for their rapid
1417: response to our observation requests. We thank the CXC Director,
1418: Harvey Tananbaum, for awarding discretionary time to observe SN~2002ic
1419: and SN~2005gj. We acknowledge Carles Badenes, Andrew Baker, and
1420: Daniela Calzetti for helpful discussions on various aspects of this
1421: project. We also thank Stefan Immler for discussions about the Swift
1422: observations of SN~2005ke.
1423: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic
1424: Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1425: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1426: Aeronautics and Space Administration. We also made use of data
1427: obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research
1428: Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
1429: Financial support was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space
1430: Administration through \chandra\ Award Number GO2-3068X issued to
1431: Rutgers University by the \cxo\ Center, which is operated by the
1432: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the
1433: National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060.
1434:
1435: {\it Facilities:} \facility{CXO (ACIS-S)}, \facility{Swift (XRT)}
1436:
1437: \appendix
1438:
1439: \section{X-ray Emission from Host Galaxies}
1440:
1441: Only the host galaxies of the two nearby SNe, NGC 3170 and NCG 1371,
1442: show any evidence for X-ray emission. In each case there is a
1443: compact, spectrally hard, nuclear X-ray source in addition to faint
1444: diffuse emission. Here we present a brief report on the new
1445: information from the \chandra\ observations of these galaxies.
1446:
1447: \subsection{NGC~3190 and other nearby galaxies}
1448:
1449: NGC~3190 is a member of the Hickson Compact Group 44, also the Leo
1450: III group, and is classified as a Low Ionization Nuclear Emission
1451: Region (LINER) galaxy. X-ray emission from this galaxy was first
1452: reported by \citet{piletal95} using a short (5 ks) \rosat\ PSPC
1453: observation from which it was only possible to determine a broadband
1454: luminosity of $4\times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (0.07--3 keV band), where
1455: we have corrected their published result for our assumed
1456: distance to the galaxy.
1457: \citet{liubre05} report the presence of a compact nuclear
1458: X-ray source with an estimated X-ray flux of $8.8\times 10^{39}$ ergs
1459: s$^{-1}$ (0.3--8 keV band) based on \rosat\ HRI
1460: data.
1461:
1462: The \chandra\ data (Fig.~\ref{bo_soft_img}) reveal that the compact
1463: nuclear source is spectrally hard and, in addition, is embedded in a
1464: faint, diffuse, spectrally soft, extended component. This latter
1465: component tends to lie north and east of the nucleus, and clearly
1466: avoids the prominent dust lane that runs through the galaxy from
1467: southeast to northwest some 10$^{\prime\prime}$ south of the nucleus.
1468: The spectra shown in Fig.~\ref{bo_spec} were extracted from the 5
1469: regions shown on Fig.~\ref{bo_soft_img}. We have already discussed
1470: the bottommost spectrum in this figure (i.e., the background spectrum)
1471: in \S 3.
1472: All fits were carried out with the likelihood figure-of-merit function
1473: used for the background model fits, which does not yield an explicit
1474: goodness-of-fit criterion. However, the models, at least visually,
1475: provide a fairly good description of the spectral data.
1476: All spectral
1477: fits, except the absorbed nuclear power-law component, include
1478: absorption fixed at the Galactic HI column density value of $N_{\rm H}
1479: = 2.1\times 10^{20}\, \rm cm^{-2}$.
1480:
1481: The top spectrum comes from the innermost region: a circle
1482: 1.5$^{\prime\prime}$ (160 pc) in radius centered on the mean position
1483: of the hard nuclear source (R.A.=10:18:05.63, Decl.=+21:49:56). For
1484: an acceptable fit the spectrum requires two components: a highly
1485: absorbed power-law as well as thermal emission (using the ``mekal''
1486: model in xspec). The best fit thermal emission model has $kT = 0.76\pm
1487: 0.05$ keV and emission measure, $n_e n_H V = 4.3\times 10^{61}$
1488: cm$^{-3}$. The power-law component has a fixed photon index of $\Gamma
1489: = 1.4$ with a best-fit intrinsic absorption of $N_{\rm H} = 1.7\pm0.3
1490: \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ and flux density at 1 keV of $F_E = 6.2\pm
1491: 1.4 \times 10^{-5}$ photons keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The
1492: unabsorbed flux (0.5--10 keV) of the power-law component is $5.5
1493: \times 10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ or a luminosity of $3 \times
1494: 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. It is clear that the LINER nature of this
1495: galaxy is due to an obscured, low luminosity, active galactic nucleus (AGN).
1496:
1497: The three spectra in the middle of Fig.~\ref{bo_spec} are of the
1498: spectrally soft, extended emission and all are well described by
1499: thermal emission alone. The red spectrum was extracted from the second
1500: smallest region on Fig.~\ref{bo_soft_img}, an ellipse with semi-major
1501: axis lengths of 3.9$^{\prime\prime}$ and 3.2$^{\prime\prime}$ (420 pc
1502: $\times$ 340 pc). The best fit values for the thermal emission were
1503: $kT = 0.80\pm 0.05$ keV and $n_e n_H V = 3.5\times 10^{61}$ cm$^{-3}$.
1504: The green spectrum came from the next larger region: an ellipse with
1505: semi-major axis lengths of 9.6$^{\prime\prime}$ and
1506: 8.4$^{\prime\prime}$ (1.0 kpc $\times$ 0.9 kpc). This was well fit by
1507: thermal emission alone with a best fit $kT = 0.74\pm 0.08$ keV and
1508: $n_e n_H V = 2.9\times 10^{61}$ cm$^{-3}$. Finally the blue spectrum
1509: came from the next region: an ellipse with semi-major axis lengths of
1510: 45$^{\prime\prime}$ and 25$^{\prime\prime}$ (4.8 kpc $\times$ 2.7
1511: kpc). Three obvious point sources were excluded from this region.
1512: This was well fit by thermal emission alone with a best fit $kT =
1513: 0.37\pm 0.06$ keV and emission measure, $n_e n_H V = 4.2\times
1514: 10^{61}$ cm$^{-3}$.
1515:
1516: From the spectral extraction regions we estimate emitting volumes
1517: (assuming an ellipsoidal geometry with the line-of-sight depth equal
1518: to the mean of the axis lengths of the extraction regions) and then
1519: convert the emission measures given above into the density of the
1520: emitting plasma (for $n_e / n_H = 1.2$). We find density values that
1521: vary from $n_H = 0.27$ cm$^{-3}$ near the nucleus through values of
1522: 0.069 cm$^{-3}$ and 0.015 cm$^{-3}$ for the inner and mid galaxy
1523: regions to a value of 0.0025 cm$^{-3}$ for the outer galaxy. These
1524: values are broadly consistent with an r$^{-2}$ profile perhaps
1525: pointing toward an outflow from the central regions of the galaxy. In
1526: summary, the X-ray emission properties of NGC~3190 closely resemble
1527: those of other LINER galaxies studied by \citet{teretal02}: a low
1528: luminosity and obscured AGN with soft ($kT\sim 0.8$ keV) extended
1529: thermal emission.
1530:
1531: X-ray emission from two other galaxies (NGC~3193 and NCG~3185) in HCG
1532: 44 were also reported by \citet{piletal95}. We also detect X-ray emission
1533: from these same galaxies in the \chandra\ data, which, thanks to a
1534: fortuitous value of the roll angle, happen to lie within the field of
1535: view. Although clearly detected, the emission from NGC 3193 falls
1536: near the gap between chips S3 and S4, which renders derived results
1537: somewhat inaccurate. We do not consider this galaxy further.
1538:
1539: NCG 3185 is $\sim$9$^\prime$ off-axis where the imaging quality of
1540: \chandra\ is modest ($\sim$5$^{\prime\prime}$). The PSF there is
1541: however sufficient to separate the compact nuclear emission from the
1542: fainter off-nuclear source, XMMU J101737.4+214144, discovered by
1543: \citet{fosetal02}. The published \xmm\ luminosity for the off-nuclear
1544: source is $1.3 \times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (0.5--10 keV band)
1545: assuming a power-law source with a photon index of 2.0 and distance of
1546: 21.3 Mpc. We detect this source in the \chandra\ data with a net
1547: total of $21 \pm 5$ counts above background from which we estimate a
1548: luminosity of $7 \times 10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (in the same spectral
1549: energy band using the same spectral form as the \xmm\ study). This
1550: suggests some variability in the X-ray luminosity of this off-nuclear
1551: source. The nuclear source is stronger (detected at $72 \pm 9$ counts
1552: above background) and generates a luminosity of $2 \times 10^{39}$ ergs
1553: s$^{-1}$ (again for the same band and spectral form). This agrees
1554: with the $L_X$ value published by \citet{cappietal06} from \xmm\
1555: observations.
1556:
1557: \subsection{NGC~1371}
1558:
1559: NGC1371 has typically been classified \citep[see, e.g.,][]{esk02} as a
1560: weak bar, early-type spiral galaxy (SAB(rs)a according to the RC3).
1561: It is known to display an ``Extended Nuclear Emission-line Region''
1562: (ENER) in the form of a disk-shaped zone of H$\alpha$ emission
1563: \citep{hamdev99} extending over an elliptical region with major axis lengths
1564: of roughly
1565: 30$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 13$^{\prime\prime}$ (2.5 kpc $\times$ 1.1
1566: kpc) (see Fig.~\ref{ke_swchha_img}). A compact nuclear source
1567: appears in H$\alpha$ as well. The total H$\alpha$ luminosity of the
1568: galaxy is $L_{{\rm H}\alpha} = 4.9 \times 10^{40}$ ergs s$^{-1}$,
1569: which is uncorrected for extinction and therefore a luminosity lower
1570: limit. The nuclear component (i.e., the emission within 1 kpc
1571: $\approx$ 12$^{\prime\prime}$, which contains much of the ENER
1572: emission) contains roughly 6\% of the total H$\alpha$ luminosity. The
1573: nucleus of this galaxy has not been spectroscopically
1574: identified.
1575:
1576: Our \chandra\ data reveal a compact source of X-ray emission at
1577: R.A.=03:35:01.35, Decl.=$-$24:55:59.6 that is coincident with the
1578: nucleus and is well described by an absorbed power law spectrum (see
1579: top curve and data points in Fig.~\ref{ke_spec}). The best-fit
1580: parameter values are a photon index of $\Gamma = 1.5^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$,
1581: intrinsic absorption of $N_{\rm H} = 2.5^{+0.6}_{-0.4} \times 10^{22}$
1582: cm$^{-2}$ (considerably higher than the Galactic column toward
1583: NGC~1371), and flux density at 1 keV of $F_E = 1.6^{+1.0}_{-0.5}
1584: \times 10^{-4}$ photons keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The unabsorbed
1585: flux (0.5--10 keV) is $1.2 \times 10^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
1586: corresponding to a luminosity of $4 \times 10^{40}$ ergs
1587: s$^{-1}$. Whether the excess absorption is intrinsic to the nuclear
1588: source or comes from the intervening foreground portion of the galaxy
1589: is not clear. The nuclear X-ray and H$\alpha$ luminosity values fall
1590: right on the published correlation between these quantities for
1591: Seyfert galaxies, LINERs, and AGN from \citet{hoetal01}. Thus we
1592: conclude that NGC~1371 contains a low luminosity AGN with properties
1593: similar to those found in other nearby spiral galaxies.
1594:
1595: We also detect diffuse X-ray emission on larger scales. The red
1596: spectrum in Fig.~\ref{ke_spec} (second from top) comes from the inner
1597: elliptical region identified on Fig.~\ref{ke_soft_img}, which
1598: corresponds well to the extended H$\alpha$ disk. The spectral
1599: extraction region used here has major axis lengths of
1600: 31.4$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 16.1$^{\prime\prime}$ (2.6 kpc $\times$
1601: 1.3 kpc) in size. Fits to the X-ray spectrum from this region prefer
1602: a two component model: low temperature thermal emission ($kT \approx
1603: 0.3$ keV) in addition to either a hot thermal ($kT \approx 10$ keV) or
1604: power law ($\Gamma \approx 1.8$) component. Note that for these fits
1605: the absorbing column was fixed to the Galactic value (i.e., no extra
1606: absorption intrinsic to NGC 1371 was required). The unabsorbed
1607: 0.5--10 keV band flux of the hard component alone (for either spectral
1608: form) is $4.0 \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ corresponding
1609: to a luminosity of $1.4 \times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. The soft
1610: component yields a flux of $1.6 \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$
1611: s$^{-1}$ (equivalent to a luminosity of $5.6 \times 10^{38}$ ergs
1612: s$^{-1}$) entirely in the 0.5--2 keV band.
1613:
1614: Faint diffuse soft X-ray emission is visible on Fig.~\ref{ke_soft_img}
1615: within the outer elliptical region centered on the nucleus. This
1616: region, with major axis lengths of 104$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$
1617: 75$^{\prime\prime}$ (8.6 kpc $\times$ 6.2 kpc), covers the bright
1618: central portion of NGC~1371. Fits to the X-ray spectrum (shown as the
1619: blue curve and data points third from the top on Fig.~\ref{ke_spec})
1620: are consistent with a thermal spectrum ($kT \approx 0.4$ keV). The
1621: X-ray flux is $2.8 \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
1622: (equivalent to a luminosity of $1.0 \times 10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$) and
1623: again appears entirely in the 0.5--2 keV band.
1624:
1625: The fitted emission measure of the soft thermal component in the disk
1626: region is $n_e n_H V \sim 3\times 10^{61}$ cm$^{-3}$, while that of
1627: the outer elliptical region is $4\times 10^{61}$ cm$^{-3}$. These
1628: values lead to mean gas densities of $n_H = 0.015$ cm$^{-3}$ in the
1629: disk region and $n_H = 0.0024$ cm$^{-3}$ within the outer ellipse.
1630: For the inner disk-like region of NGC~1371, the close morphological
1631: match between the X-ray and H$\alpha$ emission argues that the X-rays
1632: we see surrounding the nuclear AGN come from the integrated flux of
1633: sources linked to recent star formation, such as supernova remnants,
1634: winds from young massive stars, X-ray binaries, and so on. The
1635: composite nature of the X-ray spectrum, especially the presence of the
1636: hard emission component, points to the need for a contribution from a
1637: population of X-ray binaries. However no individual X-ray source is
1638: clearly visible in this region (aside from the nucleus) with a
1639: luminosity greater than $\sim$$10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
1640:
1641: There are three unresolved X-ray sources that are nearly coincident
1642: (i.e., offset by $<$3$^{\prime\prime}$) with individual H II regions
1643: in the H$\alpha$ image of \citet{hamdev99}. The brightest of these,
1644: CXOU~J033506.0$-$245713, is approximately 1.6$^\prime$ southeast of
1645: the nucleus and is indicated by the cross in Fig.~\ref{ke_swchha_img}
1646: (right panel). The 0.5--10 keV band flux of this source is $3 \times
1647: 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ assuming a hard power-law or high
1648: temperature bremsstrahlung spectral form, either of which describes
1649: the data well. The other two sources, CXOU~J033500.2$-$245437 and
1650: CXOU~J033452.7$-$245527, are each roughly one-third as bright in the
1651: \chandra\ data. The luminosities of these sources, if they are in
1652: NCG~1371 as seems likely, are $3\times 10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ for the
1653: two fainter ones and $10^{39}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ for the brighter one.
1654: With the exception of the nucleus, these are the brightest sources
1655: within the optical extent ($5.6^\prime \times 3.9^\prime$) of NGC~1371.
1656: Their high X-ray luminosity, generally hard spectra, and spatial
1657: association with H II regions argue that these are accreting high mass
1658: X-ray binaries.
1659:
1660: Four other sources were detected at high significance ($\ge$10 counts)
1661: within this area, while there were three others with 7--8 counts.
1662: None of these other sources shows a counterpart in the H$\alpha$ or
1663: continuum images of \citep{hamdev99} or in 2MASS infrared images
1664: \citep{jaretal03}. We expect only $\sim$3 unrelated background
1665: sources at these flux levels, so most of these should be new sources
1666: associated with NCG~1371.
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670:
1671: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Aldering et al.(2006)]{aldetal06} Aldering, G., et al.\
1674: 2006, \apj, 650, 510
1675:
1676: \bibitem[Barentine et al.(2005)]{barentine05} Barentine, J., et al.~2005,
1677: CBET, 247
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Benetti et al.(2002)]{bene02} Benetti, S., Altavilla, G.,
1680: Pastorello, A., Riello, M., Turatto, M., Cappellaro, E., Tomov, T.,
1681: \& Mikolajewski, M.~2002, IAU Circ., 7848
1682:
1683: \bibitem[Benetti et al.(2004)]{bene04} Benetti, S., et al.~2004,
1684: MNRAS, 348, 261
1685: % Benetti, S., Meikle, P.,
1686: % Stehle, M., Altavilla, G., Desidera, S., Folatelli, G., Goobar, A.,
1687: % Mattila, S., Mendez, J., Navasardyan, H., Pastorello, A., Patat, F.,
1688: % Riello, M., Ruiz-Lapuente, P., Tsvetkov, D., Turatto, M., Mazzali, P.,
1689: % \& Hillebrandt, W.~2004, MNRAS, 348, 261
1690:
1691: \bibitem[Benetti et al.(2006)]{bene06} Benetti, S.,
1692: Cappellaro, E., Turatto, M., Taubenberger, S., Harutyunyan, A., \& Valenti,
1693: S.\ 2006, \apjl, 653, L129
1694:
1695: \bibitem[Blondin(2001)]{blo01} Blondin, J.~M.~2001, in Young Supernova
1696: Remnants, ed.~S.~S.~Holt \& U.~Hwang (Melville, NY: AIP), 59
1697:
1698: \bibitem[Blondin \& Ellison(2001)]{bloell01} Blondin, J.~M., \&
1699: Ellison, D.~C.\ 2001, \apj, 560, 244
1700:
1701: \bibitem[Branch et al.(1995)]{branch95} Branch, D., Livio, M., Yungelson,
1702: L.~R., Boffi, F.~R., Baron, E.~1995, PASP, 107, 1019
1703:
1704: \bibitem[Cacella et al.(2002)]{cace02} Cacella, P., Hirose, Y., Nakano,
1705: S., Kushida, Y., Kushida, R., \& Li, W.~D.~2002, IAU Circ., 7847
1706:
1707: \bibitem[Cappi et al.(2006)]{cappietal06} Cappi, M., et al.\
1708: 2006, A\&A, 446, 459
1709:
1710: \bibitem[Chevalier(1982a)]{che82a} Chevalier, R.~A.~1982a, ApJ, 258, 790
1711:
1712: \bibitem[Chevalier(1982b)]{che82b} Chevalier, R.~A.~1982b, ApJ, 259, 302
1713:
1714: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Blondin(1995)] {cheblo95} Chevalier R.~A., \&
1715: Blondin J.~M.~1995, ApJ, 444, 312
1716:
1717: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Fransson(1994)]{chefra94} Chevalier, R.~A.,
1718: \& Fransson, C.~1994, ApJ, 420, 268
1719:
1720: \bibitem[Chugai(1992)]{chu92} Chugai, N.~N.~1992, SvA, 36, 63
1721:
1722: \bibitem[Chugai \& Chevalier(2007)]{chuche07} Chugai, N.~N., \& Chevalier,
1723: R.~A.~2007, ApJ, 657, 378
1724:
1725: \bibitem[Chugai et al.(2004)]{chug04} Chugai, N.~N., Chevalier, R.~A.,
1726: \& Lundqvist, P.~2004, MNRAS, 355, 627 (CCL)
1727:
1728: \bibitem[Chugai \& Yungelson(2004)]{chuyun04} Chugai, N.~N.,
1729: \& Yungelson, L.~R.~2004, Astron.~Letters, 30, 65
1730:
1731: \bibitem[Cox et al.(2000)]{cox00} Cox, A.~N.~2000, Allen's
1732: Astrophysical Quantities, (4th ed.; New York: Springer-Verlag)
1733:
1734: \bibitem[Cumming et al.(1996)]{cumm96} Cumming, R.~J., Lundqvist, P.,
1735: Smith, L.~J., Pettini, M., \& King, D.~L.~1996, MNRAS, 283, 1355
1736:
1737: \bibitem[Deng et al.(2004)]{deng04} Deng, J., Kawabata, K.~S., Ohyama,
1738: Y., Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P.~A., Wang, L., Jeffery, D.~J., Iye, M.,
1739: Tomita, H., \& Yoshii, Y.~2004, ApJ, 605, 37
1740:
1741: \bibitem[Dickey \& Lockman(1990)]{dicloc90} Dickey, J.~M., \&
1742: Lockman, F.~J.~1990, ARAA, 28, 215
1743:
1744: \bibitem[Eskridge et al.(2002)]{esk02} Eskridge, P.~B., et
1745: al.\ 2002, \apjs, 143, 73
1746:
1747: \bibitem[Foschini et al.(2002)]{fosetal02} Foschini, L., et al.\
1748: 2002, A\&A, 392, 817
1749:
1750: \bibitem[Fransson et al.(1996)]{franetal96} Fransson, C.,
1751: Lundqvist, P., \& Chevalier, R.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 461, 993
1752:
1753: \bibitem[Frieman(2005)]{frieman05} Frieman, J.~2005, IAU Circ., 8616
1754:
1755: \bibitem[Gull(1973)]{gull73} Gull, S.~F.~1973, MNRAS, 161, 47
1756:
1757: \bibitem[Hameed \& Devereux(1999)]{hamdev99} Hameed, S., \&
1758: Devereux, N.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 730
1759:
1760: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.(1995)]{ham95} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M.~M., Maza,
1761: J., Suntzeff, N.~B., Schommer, R., \& Aviles, A.~1995, AJ, 109, 1
1762:
1763: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.(2002)]{ham02} Hamuy, M., Maza, J., \& Phillips,
1764: M.~2003, IAU Circ., 8028
1765:
1766: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.(2003a)]{ham03a} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M., \&
1767: Maza, J.~2003, IAU Circ., 8151
1768:
1769: \bibitem[Hamuy et al.(2003b)]{ham03b} Hamuy, M., Phillips, M.,
1770: Suntzeff, N.~B., Maza, J., Gonzalez, L.~E.. Roth, M.,
1771: Krisciunas, K., Morrell, N., Green, E.~M., Persson,
1772: S.~E., \& Mccarthy, P.~J.~2003b, Nature, 424, 651
1773:
1774: \bibitem[Ho et al.(2001)]{hoetal01} Ho, L.~C., et al.\ 2001,
1775: \apjl, 549, L51
1776:
1777: \bibitem[H\"{o}flich \& Khokhlov(1996)]{hofkho96} H\"{o}flich, P.
1778: \& Khokhlov, A.~M.~1996, ApJ, 457, 500
1779:
1780: \bibitem[Immler et al.(2005)]{immler05} Immler, S., Petre, R., \&
1781: Brown, P.~2005, IAU Circ., 8633
1782:
1783: \bibitem[Immler et al.(2006)]{immler06} Immler, S., et al.\
1784: 2006, \apjl, 648, L119
1785:
1786: \bibitem[Jarrett et al.(2003)]{jaretal03} Jarrett, T.~H.,
1787: Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S.~E., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 2003, \aj, 125,
1788: 525
1789:
1790: \bibitem[Jun at al.(1996)]{JJN96} Jun, B.-I., Jones, T.~W.. \&
1791: Norman, M.~L.~1996, ApJ, 468, L59
1792:
1793: \bibitem[Kawakita et al.(2002)]{kawa02} Kawakita, H, Kinugasa, K.,
1794: Ayani, K., \& Yamaoka, H.~2002, IAU Circ., 7848
1795:
1796: \bibitem[Klein, McKee, \& Colella(1994)]{KMC94} Klein, R.~I., McKee, C.~F.,
1797: \& Colella, P.~1994, ApJ, 420, 213
1798:
1799: %\bibitem[Kotak et al.(2004)]{kotak05} Kotak, R., Meikle, W.~P.~S.,
1800: %Adamson, A., \& Leggett, S.~K.~2004, MNRAS, 354, L13
1801:
1802: \bibitem[Krisciunas et al.(2004)]{kris04} Krisciunas, K., et al.~2004,
1803: AJ, 128, 3034
1804:
1805: %Krisciunas, K., Suntzeff, N.~B., Phillips, M.~M.
1806: %Candia, P., Prieto}, J.~L., Antezana}, R., Chassagne}, R.,
1807: %Chen, H.-W., Dickinson, M., Eisenhardt, P.~R.,
1808: %Espinoza, J., Garnavich, P.~M., Gonz{\' a}lez, D.,
1809: %Harrison, T.~E., Hamuy, M., Ivanov, V.~D., Krzemi{\' n}ski, W.,
1810: %Kulesa, C., McCarthy, P., Moro-Mart{\'\i}n, A.,
1811: %Muena, C., Noriega-Crespo, A., Persson, S.~E.,
1812: %Pinto, P.~A., Roth, M., Rubenstein, E.~P., Stanford, S.~A.,
1813: %Stringfellow, G.~S., Zapata, A., Porter, A., \&
1814: %Wischnjewsky, M.},
1815:
1816: \bibitem[Liu \& Bregman(2005)]{liubre05} Liu, J.-F., \& Bregman,
1817: J.~N.\ 2005, ApJS, 157, 59
1818:
1819: %\bibitem[Lundqvist et al.(2007)]{lundetal07} Lundqvist P., et al.~2007,
1820: %in prep
1821:
1822: \bibitem[Matheson et al.(2002)]{math02} Matheson, T., Jha, S.,
1823: Challis, P., Kirshner, R., \& Hradecky, V.~2002, IAU Circ., 7849
1824:
1825: \bibitem[Mattila et al.(2005)]{matetal05} Mattila, S.,
1826: Lundqvist, P., Sollerman, J., Kozma, C., Baron, E., Fransson, C.,
1827: Leibundgut, B., \& Nomoto, K.\ 2005, A\&A, 443, 649
1828:
1829: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(2005)]{nomoto05} Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T.,
1830: Deng, J., Uenishi, T., \& Hachisu, I.\ 2005, 1604-2004: Supernovae as
1831: Cosmological Lighthouses, 342, 105
1832:
1833: \bibitem[Panagia et al.(2006)]{panagetal06} Panagia, N., Van Dyk,
1834: S.~D., Weiler, K.~W., Sramek, R.~A., Stockdale, C.~J., \& Murata, K.~P.\
1835: 2006, \apj, 646, 369
1836:
1837: \bibitem[Patat et al.(2005)]{patat05} Patat, F., Baade, D.,
1838: Wang, L., Taubenberger, S., \& Wheeler, J.~C.~2005, IAU Circ., 8631
1839:
1840: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{perl99} Perlmutter, S., et al.~1999, ApJ,
1841: 517, 565
1842:
1843: \bibitem[Pildis et al.(1995)]{piletal95} Pildis, R.~A., Bregman,
1844: J.~N., \& Evrard, A.~E.~1995, ApJ, 443, 514
1845:
1846: \bibitem[Pozdnyakov, Sobol, \& Sunyaev(1976)]{PSS76} Pozdnyakov, L.~A.,
1847: Sobol, I.~M., \& Sunyaev, R.~A.~1976, SvAL, 2, 55
1848:
1849: \bibitem[Prieto et al.(2005)]{prieto05} Prieto, J., Garnavich, P.,
1850: DePoy, D., Marshall, J., Eastman, J., \& Frank, S.~2005, IAU Circ.,
1851: 8633
1852:
1853: \bibitem[Prieto et al.(2007)]{prietoetal07} Prieto, J.~L., et al.\
1854: 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.4088
1855:
1856: \bibitem[Puckett et al.(2005)]{puckett05} Puckett, T., Pelloni, A.,
1857: Baek, M., Prasad, R.~R., \& Li, W.~2005, IAU Circ., 8630
1858:
1859: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1996)]{riess96} Riess, A.~G., Press, W.~H., \&
1860: Kirshner, R.\ P.\ 1996, ApJ, 473, 88.
1861:
1862: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{riess98} Riess, A.~G., et al.~1998, AJ,
1863: 116, 1009
1864:
1865: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1999)]{riess99} Riess, A.~G., et al.~1998, AJ,
1866: 118, 2675
1867:
1868: \bibitem[Schlegel \& Petre(1993)]{schpet93} Schlegel, E.~M., \& Petre,
1869: R.~1993, ApJ, 412, L29
1870:
1871: \bibitem[Soderberg(2006)]{soderberg06} Soderberg, A.~2006, ATel, 722
1872:
1873: \bibitem[Terashima et al.(2002)]{teretal02} Terashima, Y.,
1874: Iyomoto, N., Ho, L.~C., \& Ptak, A.~F.\ 2002, ApJS, 139, 1
1875:
1876: \bibitem[Tully(1988)]{tully88} Tully, R.~B.\ 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog
1877: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.~Press)
1878:
1879: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{wang04} Wang, L., Baade, D., H\"oflich,
1880: P., Wheeler, J.~C., Kawabata, K., \& Nomoto, K.~2004, ApJ, 604, L53
1881:
1882: %\bibitem[Weiler et al.(1990)]{WPS73} Weiler, K.~W., Panagia, N., \&
1883: %Sramek, R.~A.~1990, ApJ, 364, 611
1884:
1885: \bibitem[Wood-Vasey et al.(2002)]{wood02} Wood-Vasey, W.~M., et al.~2002, IAU
1886: Circ., 8019
1887:
1888: \bibitem[Wood-Vasey et al.(2004)]{wood04} Wood-Vasey, W.~M., Wang, L.,
1889: \& Aldering, G.~2004, ApJ, 616, 339
1890:
1891: \end{thebibliography}
1892:
1893: \end{document}
1894: